A simple question

[Sojourner<><]

For those of you who feel that science has more authority in the question of origins than the Bible does, why do you feel this way?

 

[Bushido216]

It's not that. It's that the Bible has several different ways that it can be interpreted and still make sense, so we use other sources to narrow those ways down.

 

[Sojourner<><]

It's not that. It's that the Bible has several different ways that it can be interpreted and still make sense, so we use other sources to narrow those ways down.

Well, my question was addressed to those who do consider science to be the authority on the issue.

But how can you use science to confirm what's in the Bible without considering science to be the deciding authority on interpretation?

 

[gluadys]

Well, my question was addressed to those who do consider science to be the authority on the issue.

But how can you use science to confirm what's in the Bible without considering science to be the deciding authority on interpretation?

Science is not *the* deciding authority, but it is a helpful one among many.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

It's not a case of "higher authority" but "appropriate authority".

In no other area of science is the Bible considered an authoritative source. The Bible sets out to answer particular questions, on on those it is the appropriate authority. But scientific questions are not amongst them. Consequently, to interpret the Bible into giving scientific answers is to misinterpret it. The Genesis originators, writers and redactors (or Moses if you insist) did not set out to answer modern scientific questions about the age of the universe, biodiversity, the nature of biological life and so on. They were concerned with questions of meaning, purpose and the fundamental point that their God was the top bod who created everything. Using the Bible's treatment of these philosophical and religious questions as answers to modern scientific questions is a category error.

It is not dismissive of screwdrivers to eschew their use in the field of computer programming.

And that is why, in the words of the OP, I feel that way.

 

[Maccie]

Well said, Karl. Them's my views exactly!

 

[billwald]

Wrong question. Fails to differentiate between the problems of "first cause" (metaphysics) and "abiogenics" (physics). Science does not involve itself in "first cause," another way of saying (ultimate) origins.

 

[homewardbound]

How much weight you give science in the origins debate depends largely on your need to substantiate (or refute) what is written in the Genesis account. For various reasons, some people can't place their faith in a literal interpretation of the bible. It's just the way it is.

 

[Sojourner<><]

It's not a case of "higher authority" but "appropriate authority".

In no other area of science is the Bible considered an authoritative source. The Bible sets out to answer particular questions, on on those it is the appropriate authority. But scientific questions are not amongst them. Consequently, to interpret the Bible into giving scientific answers is to misinterpret it. The Genesis originators, writers and redactors (or Moses if you insist) did not set out to answer modern scientific questions about the age of the universe, biodiversity, the nature of biological life and so on. They were concerned with questions of meaning, purpose and the fundamental point that their God was the top bod who created everything. Using the Bible's treatment of these philosophical and religious questions as answers to modern scientific questions is a category error.

It is not dismissive of screwdrivers to eschew their use in the field of computer programming.

And that is why, in the words of the OP, I feel that way.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you're saying science answers questions the Bible cannot, and vice versa. If I'm right then I would agree with you for the most part.

But what about in the question of origins where widely accepted scientific evidence contradicts the most straight forward interpretation of the Bible, i.e. the six days of creation and special creation? It seems to me that in order to believe in both evolution and the Bible, reinterpretation of biblical text is required based on scientific evidence. In this case isn't science being used to interpret the Bible rather than the other way around? If so then why do you feel that this is necessary?

 

[Critias]

A friend of mine has a simple explanation. Science today is interested in Origins. That is the reason for evolution to see where man and everything originated from. To trace back to the beginning. The purpose of evolution seems to be to trace back to a common ancestor. It is all about finding our Origins.

Creation doesn't need to find our Origins, for Creationists believe that God created everything as a historical translation of Genesis leads them. So there is no need to trace back using a theory like evolution to explain Origins.

So the problem exists that the two different camps have two different goals.

As for theistic evolutionists, I would say that they could also be called theistic naturalists. For in my encounters it seems they believe that God is the Creator but gave Mother earth the ability to Create through evolution. They just don't know where to stand on abiogenesis because science has nothing to support it other than philosophical ideas.

It is an interesting argument where both sides are never satisfied. Theistic evolutionists don't like the the claim "God did it." Creationists don't like the claim "nature did it."

 

[Didaskomenos]

As for theistic evolutionists, I would say that they could also be called theistic naturalists. For in my encounters it seems they believe that God is the Creator but gave Mother earth the ability to Create through evolution. They just don't know where to stand on abiogenesis because science has nothing to support it other than philosophical ideas.

What makes you think I believe this? Just because some TE gave you that impression doesn't give you the right to tell me what I believe! And who are you to presume to know whether or not I know where to stand on any issue? This is such a horrible way of discussing things.

 

[Critias]

What makes you think I believe this? Just because some TE gave you that impression doesn't give you the right to tell me what I believe! And who are you to presume to know whether or not I know where to stand on any issue? This is such a horrible way of discussing things.

My apologies. Take that as some or many, which ever you prefer. It wasn't intended to say all theistic evolutionists. If it was, I would have said all.

I did not phrase my statement at you Didaskomenos, nor was I speaking directly at you. It was a general statement of some/many theistic evolutionists. It was my fault for not adding in some/many to describe my belief of the sum of theistic evolutionists involved.

Are you still holding a grudge after our last conversation that you will use my words in your last sentence to make a point? If so, please don't beat around the bush and just state that you are upset and why.

I can apologize again if you like, but if you don't want to forgive and forget, then that is not my fault.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Critias, I was just having a little fun! I knew I shoulda put a smiley on that post. I actually pretty much agree with you on all points, so I guess I am one of those "some/many theistic evolutionists".

 

[Smidlee]

It is an interesting argument where both sides are never satisfied. Theistic evolutionists don't like the the claim "God did it." Creationists don't like the claim "nature did it."

To be more exact creationists don't like the claim "Evolution did it." which I've often heard on nature and science programs. Like exactly how can something evolves from a two-chamber heart to a three-chamber heart to finally four without causing disability with a poorly working heart between the switch. A defected heart could doom any species. So far all I heard is evolution did it with it's supernatural-selection powers.

 

[gluadys]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you're saying science answers questions the Bible cannot, and vice versa. If I'm right then I would agree with you for the most part.

But what about in the question of origins where widely accepted scientific evidence contradicts the most straight forward interpretation of the Bible, i.e. the six days of creation and special creation?

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

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?

It seems to me that in order to believe in both evolution and the Bible, reinterpretation of biblical text is required based on scientific evidence. In this case isn't science being used to interpret the Bible rather than the other way around? If so then why do you feel that this is necessary?

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 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.

 

[gluadys]

A friend of mine has a simple explanation. Science today is interested in Origins. That is the reason for evolution to see where man and everything originated from. To trace back to the beginning. The purpose of evolution seems to be to trace back to a common ancestor. It is all about finding our Origins.

Creation doesn't need to find our Origins, for Creationists believe that God created everything as a historical translation of Genesis leads them. So there is no need to trace back using a theory like evolution to explain Origins.

So the problem exists that the two different camps have two different goals.

It is not so much different goals as a different frame of reference. Remember that theistic evolutionists also agree that God created everything, and so also do not need to explain Origins in a metaphysical or theological frame of reference. But the scientific question is not a metaphysical question. It is a question of mechanism. What are the physical processes involved in the origin of physical beings? This has no relevance to the metaphysical question of origins. And it is relevant scientifically no matter what theological position one takes.

The essential difference between creationists and theistic evolutionists is not fundamentally about God or creation, but about the understanding of scripture given the findings of modern science. As I see it, creationists are committing a category error by insisting on physical confirmation of a metaphysical frame of reference.

As for theistic evolutionists, I would say that they could also be called theistic naturalists. For in my encounters it seems they believe that God is the Creator but gave Mother earth the ability to Create through evolution.

I would accept "theistic naturalist" but not the rest. I don't know why creationists are so opposed to the idea that God is the God of nature and all its processes. I don't know why they seem to take the stance that if something happens by natural process, it indicates that God had no hand in it. Why does creationism limit God's presence and direct activity to the miraculous? Are interventions which suspend natural processes the only way God shows mastery of nature? Why can God not show mastery of nature by using natural process to achieve his goals? Why not assume that nature was created for the purpose of achieving God's goals? Why not assume that, since evolution is a natural process affecting the whole history of life on earth, that God intended evolution and has used it according to his will?

I don't agree that we need to conceive of God delegating his creative power to "Mother Earth". That smacks of pantheism and deism. What I do think, is that we need to pay as much attention to God's immanent indwelling in creation as to his transcendance over creation. God is not an absentee landlord. Otherwise Paul would be wrong when he said "for it is in Him and through Him that we have our being." I believe that is true of every created thing. So it is in him and through him (not on its own) that earth produces life, and all living things live, and all conscious beings are aware of Him. I believe God is directly present and active in all created nature, and that without God's continual presence and activity, created nature would simply cease to be.

It is an interesting argument where both sides are never satisfied. Theistic evolutionists don't like the the claim "God did it." Creationists don't like the claim "nature did it."

Actually, I do like the claim "God did it." I just don't see any reason to set up an opposition between "God did it" and "nature did it". I think that when creationists join forces with atheists to suggest that nature = not God they are aiding and abetting the enemy.

I think creationists should focus more on combatting naturalistic philosophies that often get attached to science, instead of combatting science. Creationism has embraced so much of evolution, there is hardly a hair's breadth of difference between them and theistic evolutionists on this score any more. But we do have a common interest in combatting science taught with an atheist connotation.

 

[Critias]

It is not so much different goals as a different frame of reference. Remember that theistic evolutionists also agree that God created everything, and so also do not need to explain Origins in a metaphysical or theological frame of reference.

My first thought to this would be that theistic evolutionists do not have a different theory than evolution, they all (correct me if I am wrong) hold to the same theory atheists and naturalists do. I am not equating theistics with atheists, but rather saying there is no other theory out there that is the theory of theistic evolution that is science.

Theistic evolutionists hold to the theory of evolution which is in search of origins. Theistics may claim the origins are in God, but at the same time they are holding to a theory that is in search for origins. It is a rather contradictory position to say you are theistic evolutionists who believes the origins are in God and yet hold to the theory of evolution which is in search of origins. It is like saying I know where I came from but I don't really know so I am going to find out.

That is my perspective of it. God created the actual physical origins that evolution is in search of.

But the scientific question is not a metaphysical question. It is a question of mechanism. What are the physical processes involved in the origin of physical beings? This has no relevance to the metaphysical question of origins. And it is relevant scientifically no matter what theological position one takes.

One of the pieces of the theory of evolution is where did we and everything come from. To be theistic and an evolutionists seems rather contradictory to me.

The essential difference between creationists and theistic evolutionists is not fundamentally about God or creation, but about the understanding of scripture given the findings of modern science. As I see it, creationists are committing a category error by insisting on physical confirmation of a metaphysical frame of reference.

Here you are creating the distinction between theistic evolution and creation, not the theory of evolution and the theory of creation. For the later is in search of the origin of life - hence the name of Darwin's book - when Christians know the origin of life is God Himself.

So, as a theistic evolutionists you have to change the philosophical reasonings for the theory of evolution.

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, as you have pointed out before. So it must continue its search for the origins of all life.

I would accept "theistic naturalist" but not the rest. I don't know why creationists are so opposed to the idea that God is the God of nature and all its processes.

Is this your assumption or do you have quotes by Creationists who say they are against "God is the God of nature and all its processes"? I have never seen any Creationist say that they are against/opposed to God being in control of nature and all of its processes. Maybe you have quotes to back that claim?

I don't know why they seem to take the stance that if something happens by natural process, it indicates that God had no hand in it.

I don't think Creationists have problems with the rotating planets creating seasons. That would be a natural process created and put into motion by God. So, I think this claim of yours is invalid because of its generality.

Why does creationism limit God's presence and direct activity to the miraculous?

I would like to see quotes where Creationists limit God's presence and direct activity. In fact, I would like to see quotes of any Christian who thinks they themselves can limit God's presence and direct activity.

Are interventions which suspend natural processes the only way God shows mastery of nature? Why can God not show mastery of nature by using natural process to achieve his goals? Why not assume that nature was created for the purpose of achieving God's goals? Why not assume that, since evolution is a natural process affecting the whole history of life on earth, that God intended evolution and has used it according to his will?

At least you call them for what they are, assumptions. You seem to be very into arguing for us to assume things.

Creationists do not say God created nature without a purpose. Do you have quotes from some who do?

Jesus showed mastery over the weather and the seas. Jesus showed He can create something in an instant that needs several years for maturity: fish and wine. I could very well pose the same question to you, why are you against God creating things that are mature? Why are you against God creating how He chooses instead of how man says?


Why are you hung up on a theory that says it has not found the origin of life when you believe God is the origin of life? Do you really believe we don't know who or what the origin of life is?

I don't agree that we need to conceive of God delegating his creative power to "Mother Earth". That smacks of pantheism and deism. What I do think, is that we need to pay as much attention to God's immanent indwelling in creation as to his transcendance over creation. God is not an absentee landlord. Otherwise Paul would be wrong when he said "for it is in Him and through Him that we have our being." I believe that is true of every created thing. So it is in him and through him (not on its own) that earth produces life, and all living things live, and all conscious beings are aware of Him. I believe God is directly present and active in all created nature, and that without God's continual presence and activity, created nature would simply cease to be.

If you follow the theory of evolution and science, it leads to the philosophical idea of abiogenesis which does state that life came from non-life which would be part of earth. Why not follow it to that since that is where science leans towards?

What I think is we need to spend less time worshipping the earth and more time worshipping God and reading His Word.

No one is claiming God is not present. Can you show me who is saying God is not present in the world today? That He is absent.

I believe God created this universe out of nothing. He then took the dust of the earth and created Adam, all in one day. That leaves no room for evolution. If you need verses to back this up, just ask.

Actually, I do like the claim "God did it." I just don't see any reason to set up an opposition between "God did it" and "nature did it". I think that when creationists join forces with atheists to suggest that nature = not God they are aiding and abetting the enemy.

"Nature did it" suggests nature created. Nature cannot create apart from God. God must take an active role and create using nature.

I think creationists should focus more on combatting naturalistic philosophies that often get attached to science, instead of combatting science. Creationism has embraced so much of evolution, there is hardly a hair's breadth of difference between them and theistic evolutionists on this score any more. But we do have a common interest in combatting science taught with an atheist connotation.

I actually agree that the philosophy is what is so damaging. I don't really care who believes evolution, but the philosophies that come with it are completely against Scripture. That is how science works, it starts with a philosophy - assumption - then tries to progress.

Science and philosophy are hand in hand. Science is the tests and experiments and the assumptions of what the scientists thinks, is the philosophy of it. The theory of evolution is part science and part philosophy. The philosophy started in the early first century.

And all of this is about finding the Origins of Life and that is what is so puzzling about seeing theistic evolutionists. God is the Origin of Life, there is no need to continually search for something that is known. By doing so you are suggesting He is not the Origin of Life. That would be breaking the first commandment, in my opinion.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Critias, I think you're still making a category error.

Science is interested in the question of origins from a scientific frame of reference. The answers it finds do not contradict religious answers because the religious answers are from a different frame of reference.

It's a bit like the old tea question.

Q. Why is the kettle boiling?

Scientific answer: SLoT. It is an energetically more stable situation for the water to get hotter in contact with the element than for the element to remain hot and the water cold. So the water boils.

"Religious cognate" answer: Because K-LB wants a cup of tea.

See, knowing the "religious answer" does not invalidate the search for a scientific one. Similarly, yes, we know that God created everything, but that does not a scientific model make. There is no contradiction in seeking a scientific description of evolution and accepting that God made everything.

In other words:

Q: Why are there millions of different species?

SA: Evolution
RA: God created them.

The two answers are not in conflict. But once you make the mistake of confusing the two categories, you create a conflict that need not be there.

 

[artybloke]

For the later is in search of the origin of life - hence the name of Darwin's book

The title of Darwin's book is The Origin of Species - it does not deal with the Origin of Life (which is strictly abiogenesis not evolution.)

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,

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.

A lot of this confusion, it seems to me, comes with the inability to distinguish between types of knowledge. Science deals with physical processes that can be observed, it does not and cannot deal with metaphysical processes. Not because of some inbuilt bias in the scientist (who, remember, may be a theist him/herself), but simply because has no mechanism with which to deal with them. That doesn't invalidate the metaphysical questions, it just means that science has no opinion on whether God did it or not.

"Nature did it" suggests nature created. Nature cannot create apart from God. God must take an active role and create using nature.

More category error. I agree with the last two sentences, but no theistic evolutionist would agree with the first as stated. What they would say is that God created

through natural processes

and not through miraculous intervention. In other words, even though it can look like "nature did it", God still did it.

 

[gluadys]

My first thought to this would be that theistic evolutionists do not have a different theory than evolution, they all (correct me if I am wrong) hold to the same theory atheists and naturalists do.

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.

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.

Theistic evolutionists hold to the theory of evolution which is in search of origins. Theistics may claim the origins are in God, but at the same time they are holding to a theory that is in search for origins.

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.

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 a rather contradictory position to say you are theistic evolutionists who believes the origins are in God and yet hold to the theory of evolution which is in search of origins. It is like saying I know where I came from but I don't really know so I am going to find out.

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.”

To be theistic and an evolutionists seems rather contradictory to 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.

Here you are creating the distinction between theistic evolution and creation, not the theory of evolution and the theory of creation. For the later is in search of the origin of life - hence the name of Darwin's book - when Christians know the origin of life is God Himself.

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, as a theistic evolutionists you have to change the philosophical reasonings for the theory of evolution.

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.

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, as you have pointed out before. So it must continue its search for the origins of all life.

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.

Is this your assumption or do you have quotes by Creationists who say they are against "God is the God of nature and all its processes"? I have never seen any Creationist say that they are against/opposed to God being in control of nature and all of its processes. Maybe you have quotes to back that claim?

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.

I don't think Creationists have problems with the rotating planets creating seasons. That would be a natural process created and put into motion by God.

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.

Creationists do not say God created nature without a purpose. Do you have quotes from some who do?

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?

Jesus showed mastery over the weather and the seas. Jesus showed He can create something in an instant that needs several years for maturity: fish and wine. I could very well pose the same question to you, why are you against God creating things that are mature? Why are you against God creating how He chooses instead of how man says?

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.

Why are you hung up on a theory that says it has not found the origin of life when you believe God is the origin of life? Do you really believe we don't know who or what the origin of life is?

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.

If you follow the theory of evolution and science, it leads to the philosophical idea of abiogenesis which does state that life came from non-life which would be part of earth. Why not follow it to that since that is where science leans towards?

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.

What I think is we need to spend less time worshipping the earth and more time worshipping God and reading His Word.

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.

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

I believe God created this universe out of nothing. He then took the dust of the earth and created Adam, all in one day. That leaves no room for evolution. If you need verses to back this up, just ask.

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.

"Nature did it" suggests nature created. Nature cannot create apart from God. God must take an active role and create using nature.

So we agree on this point. Great!

I actually agree that the philosophy is what is so damaging. I don't really care who believes evolution, but the philosophies that come with it are completely against Scripture. That is how science works, it starts with a philosophy - assumption - then tries to progress.

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.

Science and philosophy are hand in hand. Science is the tests and experiments and the assumptions of what the scientists thinks, is the philosophy of it. The theory of evolution is part science and part philosophy. The philosophy started in the early first century.

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.

And all of this is about finding the Origins of Life and that is what is so puzzling about seeing theistic evolutionists. God is the Origin of Life, there is no need to continually search for something that is known. By doing so you are suggesting He is not the Origin of Life. That would be breaking the first commandment, in my opinion.

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.