Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism

[Anthony Puccetti]

I don't know how you are defining "naturalistic", but God created nature and its natural processes, so what is atheistic about them?

Yes,of course God created nature and natural processes - that is not what we're debating. I'm arguing against the acceptance of the theory of evolution,because it is illogical and naturalistic. Naturalism is the belief that only the nature world exists. This is an atheistic view of reality.
In science,methodological naturalism allows for only natural causes,even if they don't logically add up to a given phenomenon. This is an atheistic way of explaining phenomena,regardless of the personal views of scientists or those who believe in the theory of evolution. Science does not explain phenomena in accordance with the doctrines of creation and divine providence.

OTOH, what makes you think TE espouses the atheistic idea that any natural cause operates "alone"? Are you not banishing God from nature when you accept this description?

The theory explains the origins of species with natural causes alone. Why would you think that I'm banishing God from nature? That is what methodological naturalism does.
I don't believe in the theory,so if I say it is atheistic,I am not denying that God works in nature.
I don't equate scientific explanations with natural reality itself.

No, the theory doesn't say this at all.

This is an atheistic interpretation of the theory. It is not part of the scientific theory. Science never says that nature does anything "by itself".

It doesn't have to say that in order to be atheistic. It need only explain the origination of species as if only natural causes exist and are sufficient. And that is how the theory is taught by scientists.

Don't confuse science (which is neutral on the subject) with atheism.

I'm not. I recognize that MN and the ToE is atheistic. MN is not a position of neutrality,it is a refusal to acknowledge God's power in nature. And to refuse to acknowledge God is to deny him.

TEs don't buy into the lie that nature acts "by itself". Not just in evolution: in any and all natural processes.

But they believe in a narrative of the history of organisms that is naturalistic,unverifiable and illogical. It's no good to attribute to God natural processes that cannot be known to have happened.

 

[gluadys]

Yes,of course God created nature and natural processes - that is not what we're debating. I'm arguing against the acceptance of the theory of evolution,because it is illogical and naturalistic. Naturalism is the belief that only the nature world exists. This is an atheistic view of reality.

You define naturalism correctly and correctly describe it as atheistic.

However, the theory of evolution does not demand that one adopt that philosophy. It is derived from the evidence, not from a philosophy. It is perfectly possible to accept the theory of evolution while rejecting the philosophy of naturalism.

In science,methodological naturalism allows for only natural causes,even if they don't logically add up to a given phenomenon.

That is incorrect. Methodological naturalism allows for non-natural causes, but does not study non-natural causes because they are not open to the methods of scientific investigation.

Furthermore, science cannot differentiate between a non-natural cause and an unknown natural cause. So, if a phenomenon cannot be explained by natural causes, the scientific conclusion has to be: "we don't know what the cause is."

If a phenomenon can be explained by natural causes, then it is so explained.
However, science does not pass judgment on whether natural causes include or exclude divine providential action.

The theory explains the origins of species with natural causes alone.

This is incorrect. The theory explains the origin of species with natural causes. It does not pass judgment on whether those natural causes include or exclude divine providential action. Because scientific tests don't provide any way to distinguish a natural cause acting on its own from one acting in accordance with God's will, science leaves this issue without comment and sticks to what it can do: describe the natural causes, without comment or prejudice on the issue of divine action.

Why would you think that I'm banishing God from nature? That is what methodological naturalism does.

It is what you are doing when you accept the atheist-based notion that nature acts on its own, without God. It is what you are doing when you assume that a description of natural causes excludes God by default.

And that is not what methodological naturalism does. That is what the philosophy of naturalism does.

It's no good to attribute to God natural processes that cannot be known to have happened.

The evidence, however, is very strong that evolution has happened in the past as it is observed to happen in the present.

 

[Assyrian]

Sorry for the delay in getting back here folks We've been over in Ireland seeing the inlaws. Great weather.

Nowhere does the Bible explicitly imply geocentrism as a reality. The exact same thing can be said for the flat-earth theory. This isn't just a matter of misinterpreting scripture, it's a matter of the theory being in direct conflict with scripture. Without prior scientific knowledge, it is understandable why flat earthism or geocentrism were adopted. However, regardless if we have prior knowledge concerning evolution or not, there is no grounds whatsoever for that kind of ''interpretation'' to be tenable, because it compromises everything the Bible presents us.

Not sure what you mean 'explicitly imply', though once you stop trying to read the text making it fit your knowledge of modern science, (because obviously you know the bible couldn't get something like that wrong), and read what it says, then it is pretty clear people were describing the sun actually moving across the sky. So when Christians for most of church history read the text of Joshua, they understood it the way the writer did, that the sun was moving across the sky and really stopped moving when Joshua commanded it to stop. After the the miracle,the sun started moving again and hurried to the place it sets. Again you can read what happens after the sun sets in Ecclesiastes 1:5 the sun keeps moving, hurrying to get to the place it rises. So for a millennium and a half people read these texts literally, and understood them the way they were written by Hebrew writers long before Copernicus showed us it is the earth that moves. Was this a misinterpretation as you say? Yes. It is certainly the literal meaning of the text, but as the church came to understand after Copernicus, the literal meaning is not what God was teaching in the text. If you get hung up on the literal interpretation of the astronomy described, you miss the point, you miss what God saying.

The difference between geocentrism and the literal interpretation of Genesis is that before Copernicus or modern geology, no one questioned the literal interpretation of Joshua, while Jewish writers like Philo and Josephus, and Christians from Origin and Augustine to Aquinas and Dun Scotus all questioned the literal interpretation of Genesis. Without a prior knowledge of science everyone read the geocentric passages geocentrically, there are no scriptural grounds, nothing in scripture to even hint at another interpretation of the geocentric passages. But while most read Genesis literally, there were Jewish and Christian scholars who saw problems in the literal interpretation of Genesis from the text itself and saw it was open to a range of different interpretations. In other words, before science came along and contradicted the literal interpretation of Genesis, people saw scriptural grounds for the non literal interpretations of Genesis.

But what the geocentric debate show us is that even if there weren't scriptural grounds, we should still look for better ways to read the text once science shows us our interpretation is wrong as heliocentrism did with the geocentrists and geology and evolution do with young earth creationism. In fact this approach to scripture doesn't just go back to Copernicus, both Augustine and Aquinas said that if new scientific discoveries contradict an interpretation of scripture, then that was never what the scripture meant in the first place, that you need to find another interpretation because the old one was wrong.

 

[Assyrian]

Serpent is a name for Satan, just like Assyrian is a name for you on this board. The Assyrian is another name for Satan also.

'Serpent' might be a name, 'the serpent' is a description, the text refers to him as a beast of the field and the curse describes him as a snake slithering on the ground licking his tongue in the dust. In the Genesis Satan isn't just called a snake, he is a snake in the story. It just isn't literal.

The Scripture does say that the sin in the garden was Eve having intercourse with Satan but you need to want an in depth study to see it. Cain is the progeny of Satan. That study would need a new topic I’m sure.

If you need to study it in depth to see it, then it isn't something scripture says clearly, and for such an wild claim, you really need a pretty strong scriptural basis, not something read into texts that have other simpler and much more obvious meanings.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

You define naturalism correctly and correctly describe it as atheistic.

However, the theory of evolution does not demand that one adopt that philosophy. It is derived from the evidence, not from a philosophy. It is perfectly possible to accept the theory of evolution while rejecting the philosophy of naturalism.

Yes,I know it does not demand that we adopt naturalistic philosophy.
But it does render natural history in a naturalistic and illogical manner.
Naturalism is not always a philosophy anyway,it is firstly a simple belief or view of reality,and the ToE explains the history of organisms according to that adopted view. So if you believe the theory,you believe a naturalistic explanation of the history of organisms. Your belief that God did what the theory says happened does not convert the theory from its naturalistic character. It only makes for logically incompatible beliefs.

That is incorrect. Methodological naturalism allows for non-natural causes, but does not study non-natural causes because they are not open to the methods of scientific investigation.

By definition,MN allows for only natural causes.

Furthermore, science cannot differentiate between a non-natural cause and an unknown natural cause. So, if a phenomenon cannot be explained by natural causes, the scientific conclusion has to be: "we don't know what the cause is."

With MN,all causes are natural,whether they are discovered or not.
And for this reason,scientists will sometimes propose hypothetical "mechanisms" in order to fill in the gaps of theories.

If a phenomenon can be explained by natural causes, then it is so explained.
However, science does not pass judgment on whether natural causes include or exclude divine providential action.

Science takes it as a given that divine power is not involved in nature,because it takes the naturalistic view.

This is incorrect. The theory explains the origin of species with natural causes.

Only natural causes are mentioned,as you know.

It does not pass judgment on whether those natural causes include or exclude divine providential action.

It is taken for granted that God is not involved. This was decided for science in the 1600's.

Because scientific tests don't provide any way to distinguish a natural cause acting on its own from one acting in accordance with God's will, science leaves this issue without comment and sticks to what it can do: describe the natural causes, without comment or prejudice on the issue of divine action.

Science has prejudged in favor of naturalistic explanations. Hence MN.

It is what you are doing when you accept the atheist-based notion that nature acts on its own, without God. It is what you are doing when you assume that a description of natural causes excludes God by default.

I never said that I believe that nature is self-sufficient and you know it.
I said in my previous post that MN banishes God from nature and that I don't believe in the theory of evolution and I don't equate scientific explanations with natural reality.

And that is not what methodological naturalism does. That is what the philosophy of naturalism does.

Naturalism involves the same simple view of reality,whether in science or in philosophy.

 

[mark kennedy]

You define naturalism correctly and correctly describe it as atheistic.

Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world. (Naturalism (philosophy))​

And Darwinism is identical philosophical naturalism, right?

‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.’ (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

However, the theory of evolution does not demand that one adopt that philosophy. It is derived from the evidence, not from a philosophy. It is perfectly possible to accept the theory of evolution while rejecting the philosophy of naturalism.

Define evolution as distinctly different from the naturalism and you have an epistemology that allows for creationism. The only way creationism is mutually exclusive with evolution is if evolution is another word for naturalism.

That is incorrect. Methodological naturalism allows for non-natural causes, but does not study non-natural causes because they are not open to the methods of scientific investigation.

Says who? The working definition I'm looking at rejects any non-natural cause, effect or entity because nothing for the naturalist exists beyond the natural world.

Furthermore, science cannot differentiate between a non-natural cause and an unknown natural cause. So, if a phenomenon cannot be explained by natural causes, the scientific conclusion has to be: "we don't know what the cause is."

Except in evolution where they just say we don't know yet. It is never permissible in naturalism or Darwinism to infer a Creator.

If a phenomenon can be explained by natural causes, then it is so explained.
However, science does not pass judgment on whether natural causes include or exclude divine providential action.

Define evolution, naturalism and science and perhaps there is something to talk about but what you are effectively doing is equating them. Science is about determining cause and effect relationships utilizing mental and physical tools, there is no categorical dismissal of the 'non-natural'.

This is incorrect. The theory explains the origin of species with natural causes. It does not pass judgment on whether those natural causes include or exclude divine providential action. Because scientific tests don't provide any way to distinguish a natural cause acting on its own from one acting in accordance with God's will, science leaves this issue without comment and sticks to what it can do: describe the natural causes, without comment or prejudice on the issue of divine action.

Do you mean science in theory or practice because ID and YEC clearly fall well within the purview of origins theory.

It is what you are doing when you accept the atheist-based notion that nature acts on its own, without God. It is what you are doing when you assume that a description of natural causes excludes God by default.

It's also what you do when you make the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

And that is not what methodological naturalism does. That is what the philosophy of naturalism does.

Yes, and so does Darwinism.

The evidence, however, is very strong that evolution has happened in the past as it is observed to happen in the present.

The evidence is incontrovertible that evolution has happened and continues to happen. What does not exist is a legitimate, rational reason why God as a cause of a phenomenon falls so far beyond the realm of science that a natural cause must be fabricated in the face of the universal, self evident fact of God's existence, divine attributes and eternal nature. God as a cause comes down to epistemology, you can either know that God has acted in time and space or you can't. If you can't then the witness of Scripture is invalid as evidence and the revelation of God from nature is illusory. If you can then God is a viable cause for miracles and miracles that happen within the natural realm are subject to human investigation.

That is how it works, it's one or the other, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Papias]

I have yet to hear a creationist explain why they understand and work well with the MN not Phil Nat distinction in things like gravity and obstetrics, yet fail to understand that very same distinction in the case of biology.

Papias

 

[gluadys]

Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world. (Naturalism (philosophy))​

Correct, especially the last phrase. Without the last phrase, the definition would fit Deism.

And Darwinism is identical philosophical naturalism, right?

Depends on how you define Darwinism. In any case the theory of evolution is not identical to philosophical naturalism. If Darwinism--depending on your definition--is, then it needs to be distinguished from the scientific theory and rejected by Christians.

‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.’ (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

Look at that sentence. Does it say that only natural laws and forces work in the world? the whole world?

Does it say that nothing exists beyond the natural world?


No, it says that one phenomenon in the world, the origin of species, thought to be a matter of miraculous interposition, is not. Instead, like much else in the created world it is an orderly and understandable process of natural law.

There is no affirmation here that only the natural world exists. In fact, Darwin was always open to theism, even if it was more Deistic or Pantheistic than Christian. His journals attest to that.

It is a twisting of Darwin's position to reformulate these words into a denial of God or of the possibility of miraculous interposition in other frameworks.

Define evolution as distinctly different from the naturalism and you have an epistemology that allows for creationism. The only way creationism is mutually exclusive with evolution is if evolution is another word for naturalism.

Evolution is not another word for naturalism. Many theists saw from the outset that evolution is about natural law under divine providence, not about denying either Creator or creation. Natural law is something Christians have always attributed to the Creator. Further, in a Christian (as opposed to a Deist) view, natural law is not a matter of the Creator leaving creation in charge of an unattended machinery. Rather natural law is part of the continuity of creation through time and is always upheld, nurtured and sustained according to God's purposes. It is within that framework that we should think of evolution.

Says who? The working definition I'm looking at rejects any non-natural cause, effect or entity because nothing for the naturalist exists beyond the natural world.

Then your working definition needs to be revised. Methodological naturalism does not reject any non-natural cause at all, and certainly does not hold to the philosophy that nothing beyond the natural world exists.

What MN recognizes is that the non-natural is not within the purview of science--unless and until science develops tools, which do not currently exist, by which the non-natural can be objectively tested for its effects.

MN reminds the scientist of his/her limitations. It doesn't mistake the limitations of scientific study for the boundaries of the world.

Where that error occurs you have philosophical naturalism.

Except in evolution where they just say we don't know yet. It is never permissible in naturalism or Darwinism to infer a Creator.

It is never permissible in science to infer a Creator. Science cannot discriminate between a non-natural cause and an unknown natural cause. So the proper attitude is "we don't know yet". This is applicable to ALL science.

And this is not naturalism. Naturalism asserts a priori that the natural world is the limit of reality. Science, including evolution, does not.

Define evolution, naturalism and science and perhaps there is something to talk about but what you are effectively doing is equating them. Science is about determining cause and effect relationships utilizing mental and physical tools, there is no categorical dismissal of the 'non-natural'.

Recognizing that one has no scientific handle by which to study the non-natural is not the same thing as a categorical dismissal of the non-natural.

When you are able to make that distinction, you may be able to begin understanding theists who accept evolution.

Do you mean science in theory or practice because ID and YEC clearly fall well within the purview of origins theory.

I agree with lucaspa here. YEC does fall within the purview of origins theory, as a falsified theory (along with ether theory and phlogiston theory). I haven't seen anything from ID yet that proposes a testable hypothesis for intelligent design theory. So I am not ready to say it falls within the purview of origins theory. Origins theology, yes, but not scientific origins theory. What I have seen so far from ID sources is a scientific sounding skepticism that is no more than overblown personal incredulity.

It's also what you do when you make the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

I make no such a priori assumption and neither do biologists. Common descent is first and foremost a logical conclusion of the origin of species as outlined by Darwin and subsequently verified in numerous studies.

Relative to that logical conclusion we have three categories of evidence:

a) actual observation of two or more species evolving from the same ancestor (numerous experiments have confirmed the evolution of assortative mating and the formation of distinct populations which at least choose not to interbreed and in some instances are no longer able to interbreed.)

b) inference of two or more species having the same common ancestor on the basis of genetic, morphological, paleontological, geographical and embryological evidence.

Both of these levels would fit into the creationist concept of an "orchard" of separately created "kinds". Except for the fact that the evidence clearly shows that humanity is not an isolated tree in this orchard but only one twig on an ancestral tree.

c) inference of a single or very few ancestral common ancestors dating back to the origin of life some 3.5 billion years ago. This inference is also supported by evidence from various fields.

The evidence is incontrovertible that evolution has happened and continues to happen.

Good. We agree on the fact of evolution. Next we can go on to understanding the mechanics of evolution. I think you are aware of most of those processes, with two exceptions.

1.You seem not to think that natural selection is an actual reality which plays a major role in evolution.
2. you have a hard time discriminating between the negative effects a mutation may have on an organism and the effect the same mutation has on a species.


Once the mechanism of evolution is well understood, all that remains is to seek out the actual historical pathways of evolution--which takes us into common ancestry.

What does not exist is a legitimate, rational reason why God as a cause of a phenomenon falls so far beyond the realm of science that a natural cause must be fabricated in the face of the universal, self evident fact of God's existence, divine attributes and eternal nature. God as a cause comes down to epistemology, you can either know that God has acted in time and space or you can't.

No, it is not a matter of epistemology, but of faith.


When you speak of "God as a cause" you apparently mean "God as a scientifically validated cause". But if God is to be a scientifically validated cause, this undermines the Christian doctrine of creation. God as a scientifically validated cause would have to be a cog within the mechanics of operating nature, or a bit of data within the operating program. And this data would have to be something human scientists can manipulate for purposes of testing its function and noting what happens when the data is missing. IOW to scientifically validate God as a cause, scientists would need to be as much in control of God as of genes, in effect, be able to do a knockout experiment with the God-cause as they do with genes

That would put human scientists in charge of God's actions


How could any Christian want such a thing to be possible?

As for epistemology, if you need science to validate God as a cause, you are setting up science as the ultimate epistemological authority. In effect, you are agreeing with philosophical naturalists that the boundaries of scientific knowledge and the boundaries of reality are one and the same thing.


Christian theologians see science as a servant of God; not as God's master and judge.

So it is for sound theological reasons that Christians should NOT appeal to science to support their belief in God as the ultimate (and sometimes proximate) cause of all that is.

If you can't then the witness of Scripture is invalid as evidence and the revelation of God from nature is illusory.

Basically, you have just set science above the witness of scripture.

 

[metherion]

I know it's been a long time since I contributed to the thread, but the quote

the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.

is Darwin describing the position of LAMARCK, not himself. So it is not Darwinism, but Darwin's summary of Lamarck's belief that the quote describes. And what Gluadys says about the lack of mention of ANY divine intervention besides the outright miraculous is quite true.

This is the missing part, by the way:

He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world,

Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

I know it's been a long time since I contributed to the thread, but the quote

is Darwin describing the position of LAMARCK, not himself. So it is not Darwinism, but Darwin's summary of Lamarck's belief that the quote describes. And what Gluadys says about the lack of mention of ANY divine intervention besides the outright miraculous is quite true.

What is being established here as a foundational principle is the the origins of life are naturalistic (natural law in motion) not of miraculous interposition. Natural selection and the naturalistic assumptions of philosophical naturalism have been inextricably linked ever since.

This is the missing part, by the way:

He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world,

It comes down to gradualism which provides the time but neglects the means.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I have yet to hear a creationist explain why they understand and work well with the MN not Phil Nat distinction in things like gravity and obstetrics, yet fail to understand that very same distinction in the case of biology.

Papias

What I have yet to hear from an evolutionist is a definition for evolution that is distinct from philosophical naturalism and mutually exclusive with miraculous interposition. You know very well that creation is inextricably linked to salvation so your constant ridicule of creationists is really nothing more then a blunt force attack on Christian theism in favor of philosophical naturalism.

You may not like me saying that but here's the thing, correcting me without that crucial definition begs the question of proof. Resorting to ad hominem attacks concedes the central argument of myself and creationists at large. What we are dealing with here are naturalistic assumptions being masquerading as science.

Now define your central term or play to your target audience but understand, failure to do so guts your arguments reducing them to pedantic rhetoric good only for their theatrical value.

 

[metherion]

What is being established here as a foundational principle is the the origins of life are naturalistic (natural law in motion) not of miraculous interposition. Natural selection and the naturalistic assumptions of philosophical naturalism have been inextricably linked ever since.

So the only two options are natural law in motion and miracles? What about divinely upheld natural law in motion? Where would that fall? And how would the natural laws be shown to be divinely upheld when the only things that can be tested are natural things?

You know very well that creation is inextricably linked to salvation so your constant ridicule of creationists is really nothing more then a blunt force attack on Christian theism in favor of philosophical naturalism.

And from the entirety of this thread and beyond, you know that creation and creationISM are different things, and nobody here is attacking Christian theism or proposing philosophical naturalism, because if we were, we wouldn't be Christians here, posting in the Christians only section, because we'd be philosophical naturalists and not believe in Christianity.

Resorting to ad hominem attacks concedes the central argument of myself and creationists at large. What we are dealing with here are naturalistic assumptions being masquerading as science.

Repeating it ad infinitum doesn't make it true. There are not perpetual and incessant ad hominems going on, and if you looked in even the next sentence of the quote I responded to you would see Darwin list the evidence Lamarck used to arrive at his conclusions, which makes them NOT ASSUMPTIONS.

Metherion

 

[Papias]

mark, your response did not answer my question. It didn't seem to address it. Is there a specific reason not to explain how you see MN working with gravity or obstetrics?

As for a definition of evolution, I gave one in our debate. You said you didn't like it. Is there a reason you are using the description of Lamarck as your definition of Darwinism? Do you think that it would have been good to explain when you first posted that description that it was a description of Lamarckianism, as opposed to saying it described Darwinism? I guess I'm not sure why we are working with the statement about Larmarckianism at all, other than your apparent desire to do so. Thanks-

Papias

 

[shernren]

What I have yet to hear from an evolutionist ...

Buddy, in our six years here, you have yet to listen to an evolutionist.

Simple as that.

 

[metherion]

Do you think that it would have been good to explain when you first posted that description that it was a description of Lamarckianism, as opposed to saying it described Darwinism

To be perfectly fair, the part talking about actual Lamarckian evolution isn't until the end of the paragraph and isn't encapsulated by the quote Mark has used. Given that 'Darwinism' USUALLY includes Darwinian evolution, I would not say it was a position of Lamarckianism since there was no reference to Lamarckian evolution in it. It would seem he is trying to use the quote to establish naturalism... but he does equate it with Darwinism, but since the quote nowhere talks about philosophical naturalism vs methodological, but instead the absence of outright miracles, I'm not really sure where he was trying to go with it. The quote neither encapsulates naturalism not the entirety of Darwinian evolution, so... yeah.

Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

mark, your response did not answer my question.

I'm not required to answer your question.

It didn't seem to address it. Is there a specific reason not to explain how you see MN working with gravity or obstetrics?

I'm not chasing these rhetorical debate tactics around the mulberry bush.

As for a definition of evolution, I gave one in our debate.

No you didn't, you said everyone knows what is meant by 'evolution', that's called begging the question.

You said you didn't like it.

Because you defined it at the species level, universal common descent requires a definition that covers every taxonomic category from species to kingdom.

I don’t think any readers here are unclear as to what is meant by “evolution”, but for the purposes of this debate, I’ll tentatively define it as the descent of one species from ancestral stock of another species.

There isn't a creationist that would have a problem with this definition and there isn't a creationist you don't have major problems with. Now, you either define 'evolution' as the change from one species to another or you are unwilling to admit to the naturalistic assumptions of your natural philosophy.

Is there a reason you are using the description of Lamarck as your definition of Darwinism? Do you think that it would have been good to explain when you first posted that description that it was a description of Lamarckianism, as opposed to saying it described Darwinism? I guess I'm not sure why we are working with the statement about Larmarckianism at all, other than your apparent desire to do so. Thanks-

Papias

...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.​

That is just one expression of the naturalistic assumptions that are opposed to Christian theism in every expression, inference and opinion no matter how benign.

I'll be expecting that definition now.

To be perfectly fair, the part talking about actual Lamarckian evolution isn't until the end of the paragraph and isn't encapsulated by the quote Mark has used. Given that 'Darwinism' USUALLY includes Darwinian evolution, I would not say it was a position of Lamarckianism since there was no reference to Lamarckian evolution in it. It would seem he is trying to use the quote to establish naturalism... but he does equate it with Darwinism, but since the quote nowhere talks about philosophical naturalism vs methodological, but instead the absence of outright miracles, I'm not really sure where he was trying to go with it. The quote neither encapsulates naturalism not the entirety of Darwinian evolution, so... yeah.

Metherion

I'm not really going anywhere with this, I'm making the same argument I have since I first started posting here. Darwinism is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. IOW, 'being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.'

Here is another expression of it:

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

So how exactly does Darwinian evolution apply to all life in the universe, including life forms, even the ones not discovered, if it's a conclusion?

Evolution is argued as an a priori, self evident, transcendent fact. There is a reason that any inference of the Creator is ostracized, it's a mutually exclusive transcendent principle. The substantive principle that transcends all reality is either God or natural law. I didn't create that dichotomy, Darwinism did.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[metherion]

I'm not required to answer your question.
...
I'm not chasing these rhetorical debate tactics around the mulberry bush.

Then why must he answer yours? It’s a very good question. Why is it only this one area that it is a big deal in? And why isn’t it a deal in things the Bible was previously thought to deal with, like heliocentrism?

It is a great area to question, ESPECIALLY due to your later insistence that everything must be either natural law or from God, why NOT take an issue with methodological naturalism EVERYWHERE?

Because you defined it at the species level, universal common descent requires a definition that covers every taxonomic category from species to kingdom.

I think he just begged the question...? Besides, since kingdoms don’t change into other kingdoms, merely species change into other species, enough species level changes would accumulate into all other taxonomic categories, no?

Now, you either define 'evolution' as the change from one species to another or you are unwilling to admit to the naturalistic assumptions of your natural philosophy.
BOLDED FOR EMPHASIS BY ME

but for the purposes of this debate, I’ll tentatively define it as the descent of one species from ancestral stock of another species.
BOLD FOR EMPHASIS ADDED BY ME

Seems like it involves species changing to me. Furthermore, where does he declare to follow what you call natural philosophy?

Darwinism is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

Except the ‘a priori’ part, and the ‘assumption’ part have both been shown wrong, and since you personally insist that ‘natural’ and ‘from God’ cannot coexist, ‘exclusively naturalistic’ only applies to how you see it, not to how the rest of us see it.

So how exactly does Darwinian evolution apply to all life in the universe, including life forms, even the ones not discovered, if it's a conclusion?

Simple logic.

For ‘life’, let’s go get the first three definitions from dictionary.com

the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the[bless and do not curse]power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2.
the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
3.
the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.

#3 is the noun referring to someone’s lifetime, so we can ignore that one. So, life is metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptability.

Life as we know it consists of imperfect replicators who need resources.

In any given section of the universe, that given section is finite.

A finite area cannot have infinite resources, by definition.

Since life as we know it needs resources, once there is too much life for the available resources, some amount of life will need to die off, because there will be insufficient resources for it to continue.

Therefore, there will be competition.

Therefore, if there is competition between imperfect replicators for finite resources, the imperfect replicators will change over time due to their imperfect replication, and the ones who can best acquire necessary resources and produce offspring will survive, while those who can’t, will not be able to, and that IS evolution.

Evolution is argued as an a priori, self evident, transcendent fact.

Except it cannot be a priori is there is evidence for it! Self evident, please show how. Transcendent, transcending what?

There is a reason that any inference of the Creator is ostracized, it's a mutually exclusive transcendent principle.

No, it is because the Creator is untestable and unfalsifiable.

The substantive principle that transcends all reality is either God or natural law. I didn't create that dichotomy, Darwinism did.

So everything is either God OR natural law. They are mutually exclusive. Your words. So you are saying it is impossible for something to be a result of BOTH God AND natural law. So, if it isn’t a miracle, then God didn’t do it, natural law did. If it happens naturally, God didn’t do it, since the two are mutually exclusive. This is what you JUST SAID.

So God DIDN”T knit me together in my mother’s womb, because my growth from a zygote to a fetus to a birthed baby happened according to natural law, without miracles. For starters.

While you personally may not have created that dilemma, it’s one that has been pointed out to you again and again, and you have denied it on one hand and yet embrace and claim in with the other.

Metherion

Edited to add: Sorry, my brains are rambling, and I don't like making back to back posts, both by me.

So, if natural law and God are mutually exclusive, then according to you, God either CAN"T or ISN"T involved in everyday life. God is not involved in you waking up, going to work safely, going through work safely, getting home safely, sleeping safely, getting your food, everything is un-interfered with by God. Food that people say grace for, but actually God isn't involved in it since every action from seed growing to grown plant to scythe (or whatever implement) cutting it down to processing , and if it's meat from it being processed to being fed to the animal to the slaughter, to the transport, everything can all be explained naturally. Guess saying grace before meals is bogus because God isn't involved in the natural process of growing, harvesting, transporting, or cooking food. And unless it winds up generating miracles, I guess God wouldn't be involved in pretty much ANY prayer.

 

[gluadys]

Because you defined it at the species level, universal common descent requires a definition that covers every taxonomic category from species to kingdom.

The definition at the species level does cover that. There is no equivalent to speciation at higher taxonomic levels. There is no such thing as familiation or classiation or phylumiation.

A population can divide into two (or sometimes more) species. Genera, families, orders, etc. by definition, are the sum total of the descendants of such a speciation.

...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.​

That is just one expression of the naturalistic assumptions that are opposed to Christian theism in every expression, inference and opinion no matter how benign.

But there is no assumption of philosophical naturalism in that phrase. Christian theology has always held that what is a result of natural law is of God, just as much as miraculous interposition is. One is no more of God than the other. Both are of God.

When creationists start speaking like this, I get the impression that it is creationists who really do not believe that God is active in nature. Creationists write God out of reality as soon as it can be explained as a result of natural law. That is pure Deism, not Christianity.

Here is another expression of it:

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

So how exactly does Darwinian evolution apply to all life in the universe, including life forms, even the ones not discovered, if it's a conclusion?

In exactly the same way as Einsteins theories of relativity apply to all motion in the universe, even in galaxies not yet discovered. Do you think that is an a priori assumption rather than a conclusion from the evidence too?

Evolution is argued as an a priori, self evident, transcendent fact. There is a reason that any inference of the Creator is ostracized, it's a mutually exclusive transcendent principle. The substantive principle that transcends all reality is either God or natural law. I didn't create that dichotomy, Darwinism did.

Darwin did not create that dichotomy. He did not set natural law above God. The theory of evolution does not create that dichotomy. It makes no comment about God positive or negative.

So where does the dichotomy come from? From the philosophy of Deists, athiests, materialists, etc. It is not intrinsic to evolution. It is not intrinsic to Darwin's theory nor to the modern theory of evolution. We, as theists, have every right to challenge the opposition of God and natural law as a false dichotomy grounded in false philosophies. We have every right to reject so-called interpretations of biological science which embrace this dichotomy as a fact of nature.


We have a right to accept the science of Darwin and modern evolutionary theory as Christians in the Christian tradition which sees natural law as how God acts providentially in nature.


The problem with anti-evolutionary creationism is that it accepts the false dichotomy as real--accepts the dictates of the philosophy of naturalism, and so is incapable of offering a truly Christian alternative view of the actual scientific information, proposing flimsy pseudo-science instead.

If we really believe in creation, we have to begin by taking creation as a given, taking creation as it is, not as how we want it to be. And creation as it is includes biological evolution and the origin of species ". . . being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition." The fact that it is the result of law does NOT make it one whit less of God than if it were the result of miraculous interposition.

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

mark, your response did not answer my question.

I'm not required to answer your question.

​

Well, OK. But let's look at what happened here.

In post #247, I stated that "I've yet to hear a creationist explain why ......."

To which you objected in post 251. When I pointed out in post #256 that you still haven't explained why as stated in post #247, you say you are not required to.

Do you see that by refusing to explain that, you have confirmed, by example, my statement from 247? Wow, thanks for immediately providing a confirming example to my post!

​

mark wrote:

Papias wrote:

As for a definition of evolution, I gave one in our debate.

​

No you didn't, you said everyone knows what is meant by 'evolution', that's called begging the question. ((Part A))

Papias wrote:

You said you didn't like it.

Because you defined it at the species level, universal common descent requires a definition that covers every taxonomic category from species to kingdom. ((Part B)) (my adds in double parentheses - Papias)

And now look what mark does here- In part A, he says I didn't give a defintion in the debate, then turns around in with the same breath says in part B that I DID give a definition in the debate, and shows that he heard it by repeating details of it!

Who's taking us around a mulberry bush?

mark wrote:

Papias wrote:

Is there a reason you are using the description of Lamarck as your definition of Darwinism? Do you think that it would have been good to explain when you first posted that description that it was a description of Lamarckianism, as opposed to saying it described Darwinism? I guess I'm not sure why we are working with the statement about Larmarckianism at all, other than your apparent desire to do so. Thanks-

Papias

...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.
​

That is just one expression of the naturalistic assumptions that are opposed to Christian theism in every expression, inference and opinion no matter how benign.

So you still aren't saying why you posted the description of larmarck's view and called it Darwinism, without telling us it was a description of larmarck's view? You also still haven't said if you think it would have been better for you to tell us that when you first posted it.
​

I'll be expecting that definition now.

As you stated yourself in your last post, I've already given it. However, if you'd rather discuss UCD, you are of course free to start a thread on it.

It seems to me that part of your apparent anger is the fact that many people use the term "evolution" when referring to UCD. I can see how this would bother someone who accepts speciation by evolution, but denies UCD (as I think you do). Though a broad and common person definition of evolution includes UCD, perhaps a more peaceful way for you to address your unhappiness with that is to simply refer to UCD, and discuss it using that term?

Papias


P.S. Thanks Metherion and Gluadys for responding to mark's last post. I think that this exclusion of God from nearly all of the world around us by creationists is indeed a core feature of this discussion, perhaps the main factor. It makes me wish Hebrews 1:3 was more well known by Christians today.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

I have yet to hear a creationist explain why they understand and work well with the MN not Phil Nat distinction in things like gravity and obstetrics, yet fail to understand that very same distinction in the case of biology.

Papias

The fact that scientific explanations for gravity is not offensive to creationists,whereas the theory of evolution is offensive to them,ought to tell you that the former does not conflict with Christian doctrine whereas the latter really does. And it should tell you that creationists do not think that God is involved with nature in a uniform way,but they recognize that some phenomena can be adequately explained with natural causes alone,because there is no pressing reason to attribute them to God. Even though God is the cause of all natural causes,but he does not act upon nature in a uniform manner. There are various degrees of free movement in nature. Biology has to do with natural things which are alive,and life in natural things is spirit and power which comes from God. It is not the same kind of phenomenon as the force of gravity,which is a purely natural,passive and unintelligent force caused by the existence of the earth in empty space. So there is no problem with a completely natural explanation for the effects of gravity. God created gravity when he created the earth,but there is no need to bring up divine power when explaining the effects of gravity. But life in natural things is itself supernatural. It is power and intelligence over nature.