Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism

[omegadk1]

Wow, this thread is full of crazy long posts, going in circles.... I'm getting dizzy....

*Never feed a troll, it will do everthing it can to pull you into the pit of never ending chatter*

 

[shernren]

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.

When this famous exchange happened:

Laplace went in state to Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full.

Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.'

Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.")

Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses. ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")
​

the theory being accused of getting rid of God was gravity, not evolution.

The fact that gravity offends creationists less than evolution probably says more about how little creationists know of the history of science and how unhesitatingly and easily they are swayed by what the present culture regards as atheistic or not, rather than about their actual discernment of the philosophical value of particular scientific theories.

 

[cubinity]

Wow, this thread is full of crazy long posts, going in circles.... I'm getting dizzy....

*Never feed a troll, it will do everthing it can to pull you into the pit of never ending chatter*

Nor follow a hobit, as one does not simply walk inoto Mordor.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

When this famous exchange happened:
Laplace went in state to Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full.

Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.'

Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.")

Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses. ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.")
[/INDENT]the theory being accused of getting rid of God was gravity, not evolution.

The lack of mention of God in a theory does not by itself make it conflict with Christian doctrine. It is when a theory portrays nature as creating life,order,physical matter and thought that it conflicts with Christian doctrine and reason itself. There may have been a few people who didn't like that Laplace didn't mention God,but obviously his theory was never a threat to Christian doctrine. In the case of scientific explanations for the effects of gravity,there is no pressing need to bring up God's power in nature,because gravity itself is not supernatural power in nature,and it does not even seem to be directly created as physical matter is.

The fact that gravity offends creationists less than evolution probably says more about how little creationists know of the history of science and how unhesitatingly and easily they are swayed by what the present culture regards as atheistic or not, rather than about their actual discernment of the philosophical value of particular scientific theories.

The concept of gravity doesn't offend Christians at all,because everyone knows from experience that it is real. But no one knows from experience that the theory of evolution is true,and reason does not demand that we believe it. Christians object to the theory of evolution not just because it does not mention God,but because the narrative cannot be shown to have happened,and because it portrays nature itself as creating living creatures,and because it is illogical in itself.

What do you mean by saying that creationists are swayed by the present culture? Is not the present culture largely secularized and accepting of evolution theory and tolerant of atheism? And why should evolution theory be accepted for its philosophical value if the narrative is all wrong? The philosophical effects of evolution theory are naturalism,atheism,social Darwinism,process philosophy and theology,relativism,the undermining of the belief that God creates things in particular and as separate creations,and that humans are created in the image and likeness of God.

 

[shernren]

The lack of mention of God in a theory does not by itself make it conflict with Christian doctrine. It is when a theory portrays nature as creating life,order,physical matter and thought that it conflicts with Christian doctrine and reason itself. There may have been a few people who didn't like that Laplace didn't mention God,but obviously his theory was never a threat to Christian doctrine. In the case of scientific explanations for the effects of gravity,there is no pressing need to bring up God's power in nature,because gravity itself is not supernatural power in nature,and it does not even seem to be directly created as physical matter is.

Not obvious to me. Laplace was the same man who, obviously inspired by his gravitational successes, would go on to invent Laplace's demon - a hypothetical intelligence (a demon, in his time, or a supercomputer in ours) who, simply by knowing everything about the universe at one instance in time, would be able to calculate everything about the universe into eternity future and past by the inexorable laws of physics.

This idea then fed into the great stream of deism which culminated in the Enlightenment, which brought about liberal readings of the Bible wherein all miracles were to be treated as suspect. Up and against this initially stood the views of Newton. He had calculated that the Solar System was gravitationally unstable, and that God periodically had to create comets ex nihilo and crash them into the Solar System to stabilize things - but Laplace had proven that his calculations were mistaken, and God didn't need to interfere in gravity, and if God didn't need to interfere in gravity why did He need to interfere anywhere else?

And so it was this conception of gravity that fed (indirectly) into the rationalization of obvious Biblical miracles, to the liberal rejection of such things as the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ, and ultimately to the likes of Bishop Spong today. It is a threat to Christian doctrine if not handled with a strong theology of providence, and its threat is all the more potent because it is too subtle for all-guns-blazing creationists like yourself.

The concept of gravity doesn't offend Christians at all,because everyone knows from experience that it is real.

Hogwash. You have never experienced gravity as it holds the planets. You spoke last time of causal powers and their being commensurate to their effects. But I think I can convince you that the causal power of "gravity" - the force we do experience everyday, which brings apples and towers crashing to the ground - is insufficient to explain the workings of the Solar System, for the following reasons:

1. Gravity is weak. Try to stand up from your chair now. Congratulations - for a moment you canceled out the gravitational attraction of the entire planet Earth. Do you really expect me to believe that such a feeble force holds the massive orbs of the heavens in their courses?

2. You may object that the planets and stars are very massive, but that brings you to an even greater problem - gravity has only been observed to affect terrestrial matter. How do you even know that Mars or the Sun or Venus are at all susceptible to gravity? You have been brainwashed into believing so, that's all.

(In fact, the laws of chemistry and physics have been observed to apply to living matter, and frequently in vivo, while you have never dropped an apple on the surface of Venus, so quite frankly I have a better claim to the laws of nature applying to life as well as non-life than you have of gravity applying in distant outer space as well as on Earth.)

3. Gravity destroys. The entire discipline of engineering is predicated on the need to protect buildings from the onerous effect of gravity. Though it is weak, it is unrelenting; and over time it buckles steel and breaks bones and even causes apples to assault unsuspecting physicists. Can such a destructive force truly be said to sustain the order of the Solar System?

4. Gravity is unscriptural. I don't just mean that Scripture appears to be geocentric. It is simply describing things from our frame of reference, I'll grant that. But Scripture always describes objects as moving across the sky, be it the sun or moon or stars. It never describes celestial objects being attracted to each other. It never speaks of the Earth being attracted towards the Sun, or the Moon attracted to the Earth. Why should that be so if God really wanted to give us truth?

I would like to see you answer these objections. I suspect that you, like most creationists, have never given a second thought to something that was actually a great difficulty for Christian men of science in ages past.

But no one knows from experience that the theory of evolution is true,and reason does not demand that we believe it. Christians object to the theory of evolution not just because it does not mention God,but because the narrative cannot be shown to have happened,and because it portrays nature itself as creating living creatures,and because it is illogical in itself.

As I have said, is it really any more logical to believe that a force so feeble that a little bird can defy it almost its entire life should be so strong as to hold the Earth about the Sun? What you deem logical is simply a result of your unquestioning acceptance of society's scientific norms.

And if evolution is really so illogical, shouldn't it be objected to by more people than just creationists? Or are they the only rational people on the planet?

What do you mean by saying that creationists are swayed by the present culture? Is not the present culture largely secularized and accepting of evolution theory and tolerant of atheism? And why should evolution theory be accepted for its philosophical value if the narrative is all wrong? The philosophical effects of evolution theory are naturalism,atheism,social Darwinism,process philosophy and theology,relativism,the undermining of the belief that God creates things in particular and as separate creations,and that humans are created in the image and likeness of God.

I mean precisely that creationists, like the culture around them, have unquestioningly accepted that these are the implications of evolution, or that evolution must secularize. On one hand you have atheistic evolutionists saying that evolution implies atheism; on the other you have Christian evolutionists saying that it does not. And you would rather agree with the atheists than the Christians on this point!

(Of course, whether a statement is agreed with by atheists or Christians or both or neither is ultimately not very relevant to its truth; I am simply illustrating my point that on this topic creationists are closer to atheists than they are to Christians, whether or not they be right.)

Creationists have for the large part accepted culture's definition of what secularizes and what does not. For that matter, let me take it one step deeper: creationists have accepted culture's obsession with origins as a definition of identity. Why should it matter to creationists that they were descended from a monkeys? You could come from a line of mass rapist-murderers for all I care and still become a precious child of God. Americans are obsessed with being entitled to national benefits by their long history in the land of the USA (never mind that they were originally intruders as well), so it is only natural that their obsession also turn to defining themselves by their biological origins as well, be it the atheists thinking we are only glorified apes and the Christians thinking that cannot possibly be true. But why can't we be glorified apes? The very rocks praise God if His people fail to. And if God should choose that our bodies be shaped by the process of natural selection, will the clay speak back to the Potter and demand more dignity? Or will it fall at His feet in praise and adoration for His mysterious wisdom?

Let me take this one final step: creationists have accepted culture's claim that science in general determines meaning. Environmentalists want to save the planet because of the science of global warming; evolutionists believe that we are meaningless biological constructs because of the science of evolution; and naturally creationists, precisely because they cannot accept that meaning, think that they need a new science to give them a new meaning. But I do not feel demeaned by the science of my own conception, am I? It is of little consequence to me whether my father's sperm contained a little homunculus, or if it was the process of fertilization that did the deed, or indeed if the whole process is shrouded in such mystery that science has no answer at all. Doesn't the fact that God knit me together and that I am fearfully and wonderfully made remain unchanged? But if I do not need to change my science of conception to change the meaning of my birth, surely I do not need to change my science of evolution to change the meaning of humanity's birth! The creationists of today sound exactly like the atheist science popularizers they are competing with - just selling different products.

But if you compare them with the creationists of even a hundred and fifty years ago, and see how much change there is (and how much of that change is simply an unthinking imitation of the change of culture) you will see how unmistakably creationism is simply a byproduct of modern culture, and how little the Bible and the doctrine of creation really enters into it.

 

[theFijian]

Nor follow a hobit, as one does not simply walk inoto Mordor.

 

[cubinity]

rofl

 

[Papias]

Originally Posted by 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

in response, Anthony wrote:
​

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.

Then doesn't the fact that most evolution supporters in the US are Christian, and that the Vatican has made it clear that theistic evolution is acceptable, tell you that theistic evolution does not conflict with Christian doctrine?

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. ......

But life in natural things is itself supernatural. It is power and intelligence over nature.

But that's clearly not the case, since life can be described by chemistry and physics, even to the point that scientists can take a written DNA code in a computer, synthesize the DNA in the lab, put it in a cellular structure, to make living bacteria. There is no evidence in that of anything "supernatural".

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.

Two thoughts. First of all, you ignored the same questions with regards to obstetrics. Secondly, how can there be no problem with gravity when it contradicts scripture, and excludes God in your view?

Even though God is the cause of all natural causes,but he does not act upon nature in a uniform manner.

Doesn't Heb 1:3 state that exact opposite?

Papias

 

[Big Z]

In my honest opinion, evolution should be considered fact by now.

Only the strong can survive. Which is essentially true. It's a fairly simple concept actually.. and it makes a LOT more sense than just saying "God created everything."

Although religion seems convenient, there are far too many holes filled with the same simple answer.. "thats just the way God made it." There is an explanation for everything, and (in my opinion) science can explain with much more evidence.

 

[Greg1234]

In my honest opinion, evolution should be considered fact by now.

Only the strong can survive. Which is essentially true.

Nobody denies that only the strong will survive, or that a car with its lights on will beat out a car with its lights off at night. Or that a car which loses its seats is more fuel efficient and will beat out another with it's full complement of seats in an endurance race. Or that an airplane with its flaps extended will survive a landing on a shorter runway as opposed to an airplane with flaps retracted. None of this rules out the creation of any system. We already knew that created machines have the capacity for limited change but materialism must latch on to the nearest change.

It's a fairly simple concept actually.. and it makes a LOT more sense than just saying "God created everything."

It doesn't rule out creation. There is simply the need to stamp out all supernatural influences.

Although religion seems convenient, there are far too many holes filled with the same simple answer.. "thats just the way God made it."

The field of operation necessitates such.


Geologist- Blood clotting is caused by earthquakes

Micro biologist- No it isn't (earthquake theory refuted)

g- So you think you can just refute my theory? Where's the evidence that your enzymes cause blood clotting. Provide geological evidence.

mb- using your eyes you can see that the process conforms to the enzymatic actions.

g- So thats it?

mb-- thats all that can be given

g- So enzymes did it

mb- yes

g- that's not a seismographic explanation

mb- no it isn't

g- this will not get published in a geography journal

mb- no it wont

g- [something about geography doesnt deal with enzymes, gnomes, fairies and other imaginary beings]

mb- they aren't needed, see the perceptible portion of the blood clotting phenomenon explained in Enzymatic Design.

g- fairies did it. Faries are causing the blood clots

mb- you could call them that if you want.

g- All hail the flying spaghetti monster, king of blood clotting

mb- different name, it doesnt matter. Again see Enzymatic Design

g- no

mb- fine

g- new evidence that earthquakes cause blood clotting

mb- this was refuted.

There is an explanation for everything, and (in my opinion) science can explain with much more evidence.

Methodological naturalism is the problem.

 

[lucaspa]

Nobody denies that only the strong will survive, or that a car with its lights on will beat out a car with its lights off at night. Or that a car which loses its seats is more fuel efficient and will beat out another with it's full complement of seats in an endurance race. Or that an airplane with its flaps extended will survive a landing on a shorter runway as opposed to an airplane with flaps retracted. None of this rules out the creation of any system. We already knew that created machines have the capacity for limited change but materialism must latch on to the nearest change.

There are several religious problems with thinking that each species is specially created. It's one of the reasons why Christians abandoned creationism so readily in favor of evolution. Evolution was more Christian.

Part of the problem is summarized in the following joke:
Three engineers are discussing the human body: an electrical engineer, a hydraulic engineer, and a civil engineer. The electrical engineer says "The human body was designed by an electrical engineer. Look at the complex of wires that carry electrical impulses that are the nerves and brain." The hydraulic engineer says "No, the human body was designed by a hydraulic engineer. Look at the magnificent pump that is the heart and the series of pipes that are the blood vessels." The civil engineer then says "You're both wrong. The human body was designed by a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipe through the middle of a recreation area?"

Methodological naturalism is the problem.

You are thinking that MN keeps us from looking at a supernatural explanation?

Greg, creationism is a natural explanation in terms of MN. Creationism says that biological organisms are manufactured. You state this above: "We already knew that created machines" Machines are manufactured. By humans. You can use the word "created", but here it means the same as "manufactured". Machines are manufactured by humans in their present forms.

Now, the mechanism of manufacture by God in creationism is "miracle". But that method doesn't change the material nature of "manufactured". It simply means the method is unknown to humans. We can test to see if something is manufactured. You have obviuosly done so in the case of cars. We have done so in the case of living organisms and they are not.

That species of living organisms are not manufactured is a good thing for Christianity. You see, the design of the manufacture tells you something of the designer. Think of the Pinto. Remember, the car that exploded when rear-ended? What does the Pinto tell you about the people who designed it? That they were dumb. Everyone knows that cars get rear-ended in traffic. Designing a car that explodes when that happens is a dumb thing to do. Well, IF every species is designed by God, it also tells us something about God. If you look at every species, what you find is what is summarized by the joke: the designer was dumb. It's really dumb to run a toxic waste pipe thru a recreation area. Yet, Greg, as a male isn't that exactly what we face? There are hundreds/thousands of other examples. Other examples lead us to conclude that God is sadistic (such as the digestive system in rabbits). Others (such as the Panda's thumb) that God is suffering from Alzheimer's. All of that is tolerable for science; none of it is acceptable for Christianity. And so it is a good thing that species (and parts of them) are designed by natural selection instead of manufactured by God.

What you don't understand about "the strong survive" is that natural selection is an unintelligent process to get design. Yes, in a competition of driving at night, a car with the design of headlights will do better than a car with a design of no headlights. And, in the competition of the marketplace, cars with headlights did indeed survive and replace all the cars designed without headlights. So now all cars are manufactured with headlights.

But the same happens in nature without intelligent input. The environment (instead of the marketplace) sets the design problem. In a dessert, the design problem for plants is how to make do with little water. In a climate growing warmer, the design problem for deer is how to cope with the heat. Each individual organism in a population represents one possible solution to the design problem. Each generation is a competition. For the deer, individuals with shorter fur than the average will have less problems with heat exhaustion than deer with fur longer than the average. In that particular generation, more deer with shorter fur will survive to reproduce the next generation than deer with longer fur. So, in the next generation, the average length of fur for the population will be shorter than the previous generation. This continues generation after generation until the new average is optimal for the new climate. It may continue enough that the bell-shaped curve that represents fur length doesn't even overlap the original bell-shaped curve. At any rate, we now have a population of deer that is different from the original.

Natural selection is such a good designer that humans use it when the design problem is too tough for them. Humans set the environment and then turn natural selection loose to find the optimal design for that environment. www.genetic-programming.com

 

[lucaspa]

Methodological naturalism is the problem.

MN stops atheists from claiming that science does away with God. MN requires science to be neutral with respect to God's superintendence of nature. As Gould summarizes:

" To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists." SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992. Stephen Jay Gould "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge," 1992

 

[That Canadian Guy]

There are several religious problems with thinking that each species is specially created. It's one of the reasons why Christians abandoned creationism so readily in favor of evolution. Evolution was more Christian.

Part of the problem is summarized in the following joke:
Three engineers are discussing the human body: an electrical engineer, a hydraulic engineer, and a civil engineer. The electrical engineer says "The human body was designed by an electrical engineer. Look at the complex of wires that carry electrical impulses that are the nerves and brain." The hydraulic engineer says "No, the human body was designed by a hydraulic engineer. Look at the magnificent pump that is the heart and the series of pipes that are the blood vessels." The civil engineer then says "You're both wrong. The human body was designed by a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipe through the middle of a recreation area?"

You are thinking that MN keeps us from looking at a supernatural explanation?

Greg, creationism is a natural explanation in terms of MN. Creationism says that biological organisms are manufactured. You state this above: "We already knew that created machines" Machines are manufactured. By humans. You can use the word "created", but here it means the same as "manufactured". Machines are manufactured by humans in their present forms.

Now, the mechanism of manufacture by God in creationism is "miracle". But that method doesn't change the material nature of "manufactured". It simply means the method is unknown to humans. We can test to see if something is manufactured. You have obviuosly done so in the case of cars. We have done so in the case of living organisms and they are not.

That species of living organisms are not manufactured is a good thing for Christianity. You see, the design of the manufacture tells you something of the designer. Think of the Pinto. Remember, the car that exploded when rear-ended? What does the Pinto tell you about the people who designed it? That they were dumb. Everyone knows that cars get rear-ended in traffic. Designing a car that explodes when that happens is a dumb thing to do. Well, IF every species is designed by God, it also tells us something about God. If you look at every species, what you find is what is summarized by the joke: the designer was dumb. It's really dumb to run a toxic waste pipe thru a recreation area. Yet, Greg, as a male isn't that exactly what we face? There are hundreds/thousands of other examples. Other examples lead us to conclude that God is sadistic (such as the digestive system in rabbits). Others (such as the Panda's thumb) that God is suffering from Alzheimer's. All of that is tolerable for science; none of it is acceptable for Christianity. And so it is a good thing that species (and parts of them) are designed by natural selection instead of manufactured by God.

Whether it was manufacturing or natural selection, the point is that creation in its entirey was a design process by God Himself, these are just two differeng views on the processes He may have used to accomplish the task. You infer natural selection as the absolute explanation for biodiversity, but it is a like you are removing God's active role in this process by doing so. You might as well remove God from the picture altogether, because He isn't needed, the conclusion being that He played no role in the producing of earth's biodiverasity, past, present, and future. So God created a machine that would do the job for Him, and let it roll down the hill? That isn't what the Bible teaches us whatsoever. God played an active role in every step, every phase. Regardless if you infer manufacturing or natural selection as the cause, the end result of biological life in its entirety is attributed to God, therefore your logic of a "dumb" creator really is misplaced. It's almost like the natural selection becomes the scape goat for the perceived negatives found in certain species. Do you think God intended to create things so blindly and haphazardly? Do you know the ways of God, that you can conclude such things using your limited, finite logic? Were you there prior to the Fall, when the world existed in a state that was in accordance with the will of the Father? Any idea how life could have possibly functioned then?

What you don't understand about "the strong survive" is that natural selection is an unintelligent process to get design. Yes, in a competition of driving at night, a car with the design of headlights will do better than a car with a design of no headlights. And, in the competition of the marketplace, cars with headlights did indeed survive and replace all the cars designed without headlights. So now all cars are manufactured with headlights.

I believe the concept of natural selection and survival of the fittest exist in a fallen world, which brings up a nasty theological ramification for theistic evolution...that death, decay, and suffering were advents of God, in that He implemented these realities for the use of His creative process. Yet concurrently is proclaiming everything He makes to be good, according to genesis 1. Acceptance of evolutionary theory brings about a complete detachment from the word of God, something that is most definitely not good.

But the same happens in nature without intelligent input. The environment (instead of the marketplace) sets the design problem. In a dessert, the design problem for plants is how to make do with little water. In a climate growing warmer, the design problem for deer is how to cope with the heat. Each individual organism in a population represents one possible solution to the design problem. Each generation is a competition. For the deer, individuals with shorter fur than the average will have less problems with heat exhaustion than deer with fur longer than the average. In that particular generation, more deer with shorter fur will survive to reproduce the next generation than deer with longer fur. So, in the next generation, the average length of fur for the population will be shorter than the previous generation. This continues generation after generation until the new average is optimal for the new climate. It may continue enough that the bell-shaped curve that represents fur length doesn't even overlap the original bell-shaped curve. At any rate, we now have a population of deer that is different from the original.

Natural selection is such a good designer that humans use it when the design problem is too tough for them. Humans set the environment and then turn natural selection loose to find the optimal design for that environment.

1 Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse,
And a branch from his roots will bear fruit.
2 The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him,
The spirit of wisdom and understanding,
The spirit of counsel and strength,
The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
3 And He will delight in the fear of the LORD,
And He will not judge by what His eyes see,
Nor make a decision by what His ears hear;
4 But with righteousness He will judge the poor,
And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth;
And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,
And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked.
5 Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins,
And faithfulness the belt about His waist.

6 And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,
And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,
And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little boy will lead them.
7 Also the cow and the bear will graze,
Their young will lie down together,
And the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra,
And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den.
9 They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
As the waters cover the sea. 10 Then in that day
The nations will resort to the root of Jesse,
Who will stand as a signal for the peoples;
And His resting place will be glorious.

This goes far beyond materialistic explanation, and is independant from the scope of naturalistic thought.

 

[shernren]

So God created a machine that would do the job for Him, and let it roll down the hill? That isn't what the Bible teaches us whatsoever.

Do you know the ways of God, that you can conclude such things using your limited, finite logic? Were you there prior to the Fall, when the world existed in a state that was in accordance with the will of the Father? Any idea how life could have possibly functioned then?

You should try having a conversation with yourself some time. It would be in equal measures illuminating and infuriating.

 

[lucaspa]

Whether it was manufacturing or natural selection, the point is that creation in its entirey was a design process by God Himself, these are just two differeng views on the processes He may have used to accomplish the task.

Very good. You seem to have caught on the evolution and creationism are 2 different methods proposed for how God created. You do realize that you are in "Origins Theology" and that there are no atheists here, right? We all believe God created.

You infer natural selection as the absolute explanation for biodiversity, but it is a like you are removing God's active role in this process by doing so.

Natural selection is the absolute explanation for the designs in living organisms. Biodiversity involves additional mechanisms like changing environments, ecological separation, geographical separation, etc.

You might as well remove God from the picture altogether, because He isn't needed,

Absolutely God is needed. Is God needed to keep you and I on the earth? Or do you think gravity "remove God from the picture altogether"?

Christian belief is that God sustains the universe. Everything "natural" does depend utterly on the will of God. God stops willing gravity to work and you and I float off into space. All the chemical reactions, physics, etc. that make up evolution are willed by God. God is absolutely needed.

God is not directly needed. Just like God's doesn't have to physically hold our ankles so that we don't float off the earth, God doesn't have to physically manufacture life or each individual species.

That isn't what the Bible teaches us whatsoever.

and this is the problem. It's not God, but "the Bible". So, what are you really concerned about? What God really did/does or what "the Bible teaches". Make up your mind what is more important to you: God or "the Bible".

Regardless if you infer manufacturing or natural selection as the cause, the end result of biological life in its entirety is attributed to God,

See? Since creation is attributable to God, your concern is with the Bible. However, with natural selection, God does not directly make the dumb designs. Natural selection does. Therefore God is off the hook for being stupid, sadistic, and suffering from Alzheimer's. Just as God is off the hook for killing people in a landslide. God didn't directly kill the people, gravity did.

Do you think God intended to create things so blindly and haphazardly? Do you know the ways of God, that you can conclude such things using your limited, finite logic? Were you there prior to the Fall, when the world existed in a state that was in accordance with the will of the Father? Any idea how life could have possibly functioned then?

So, you are going to blame all those bad designs on the Fall? That's not what the Bible teaches. Genesis 3 is very clear about the consequences of Adam and Eve's disobedience, and those consequences are very limited. The consequences will not account for the wholesale redesign of species like rabbits, human eyes, pandas, ichneud wasps, etc. Sorry, you can't appeal to what "the Bible teaches" and then propose something totally contrary to what the Bible teaches.

I believe the concept of natural selection and survival of the fittest exist in a fallen world,

And what do you base this belief upon?

which brings up a nasty theological ramification for theistic evolution...that death, decay, and suffering were advents of God, in that He implemented these realities for the use of His creative process.

Not a problem. What you call "death, decay, and suffering" were always present. Look at Genesis 1:29-30. God gives food to every animal. Why? What happens if we don't eat? We starve. To death. So physical death was always present. What's the problem with that? Haven't you read 1 Cor 15:55? We don't care about physical death or suffering, do we? It's not important, because at physical death we will be with God. We only care about spiritual death.

Yet concurrently is proclaiming everything He makes to be good, according to genesis 1.

Yes, it is. Including death.

What God did was make a world where our lives have meaning. Where what we do has real consequences. For that to happen there must be "death, decay, and suffering". If I take a 2 by 4 and smash you in the head with it, you must suffer, perhaps die, or my action has no meaning. If you were Adam and went out at night without proper clothing, he must have felt the suffering of cold. Otherwise his decision has no meaning because it has no consequences.

It appears that you want a Control Freak god who spoils you and takes absolute care of you. Letting nothing bad ever happen to you or letting you do anything bad to anyone else. That's not love. That's uncontrolled power and control. Do you want to be babied like that? Oh, oo poor liddle thing, stubbed your liddle toe and now it hurts. Let nice big God control you like a puppet so you never stub that toe.

1 Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse,
And a branch from his roots will bear fruit. ...

6 And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,
And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,
And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;

This goes far beyond materialistic explanation,

LOL! It's also not literal. You need to put it in context. Go back to chapter 10.
"Therefore thus says the Lord [fn]GOD of hosts, "O My people who dwell in Zion, do not fear the Assyrian [fn]who strikes you with the rod and lifts up his staff against you, the way Egypt did. "For in a very little while My indignation against you will be spent and My anger will be directed to their destruction." The LORD of hosts will arouse a scourge against him like the slaughter of Midian at the rock of Oreb; and His staff will be over the sea and He will lift it up the way He did in Egypt. "

Let's start with the verse before the one where you started, IOW Isiaih 10:34:
"He will cut down the thickets of the forest with an iron axe, And Lebanon will fall [fn]by the Mighty One. Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, And a branch from his roots will bear fruit. ..."

Now, let's continue after verse 11:
"Then it will happen on that day that the Lord Will again recover the second time with His hand The remnant of His people, who will remain, From Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, And from the [fn]islands of the sea. And He will lift up a standard for the nations And assemble the banished ones of Israel, And will gather the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the earth. ..."

It's pretty plain that Isaiah is using poetic language to describe the time of peace after God throws down all of Israel's enemies. He's not making a literal description of future biological events.

It's so sad when people misread scripture to have it say something it does not.

 

[shernren]

1 Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse,
And a branch from his roots will bear fruit.
2 The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him,
The spirit of wisdom and understanding,
The spirit of counsel and strength,
The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
3 And He will delight in the fear of the LORD,
And He will not judge by what His eyes see,
Nor make a decision by what His ears hear;
4 But with righteousness He will judge the poor,
And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth;
And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,
And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked.
5 Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins,
And faithfulness the belt about His waist.

6 And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,
And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,
And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little boy will lead them.
7 Also the cow and the bear will graze,
Their young will lie down together,
And the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra,
And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den.
9 They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
As the waters cover the sea. 10 Then in that day
The nations will resort to the root of Jesse,
Who will stand as a signal for the peoples;
And His resting place will be glorious.

This goes far beyond materialistic explanation, and is independant from the scope of naturalistic thought.

But why stop there?

“See, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind. ...
“Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
the one who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere child;
the one who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.

(Isaiah 65:17, 20)

It's going to be perfect! Most people will live to be at least a hundred years old before they die -

Now hang on a minute ...

 

[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.

Anthony:
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.

Then doesn't the fact that most evolution supporters in the US are Christian, and that the Vatican has made it clear that theistic evolution is acceptable, tell you that theistic evolution does not conflict with Christian doctrine?

Christians are in the majority in the US and most of those that accept evolution theory do so without scrutinizing it. They just figure that the scientists are probably right. Most Christians in the US are not devout or well grounded in the doctrine of creation and divine providence,and they don't check to see if scientific theories harmonize with Christian doctrine and are logical. They are too deferential towards science in regard to explaining phenomena,and they are easily impressed with mere evidence,as if evidence always makes self-evident the claims of those who present it.

But that's clearly not the case, since life can be described by chemistry and physics, even to the point that scientists can take a written DNA code in a computer, synthesize the DNA in the lab, put it in a cellular structure, to make living bacteria. There is no evidence in that of anything "supernatural".

Surely you can tell the difference between "can be described" and "what is". Scientists can describe everything in nature in a naturalistic manner. But this does not mean that the description will be a adequate account of what something is or of causation. Life itself is spirit and it cannot be made by men.

Two thoughts. First of all, you ignored the same questions with regards to obstetrics.

What exactly about obstetrics is problematic?

Secondly, how can there be no problem with gravity when it contradicts scripture, and excludes God in your view?

How do you think it contradicts scripture? It does not exclude God in my view. I said that it is not necessary to bring up God when explaining the effects of gravity,because it seems to be a purely natural force.

Doesn't Heb 1:3 state that exact opposite?

No,it does not say that God acts in nature in a uniform manner. Obviously,there are living things and dead things,and there is order and disorder.

 

[Incariol]

Christians are in the majority in the US and most of those that accept evolution theory do so without scrutinizing it. They just figure that the scientists are probably right. Most Christians in the US are not devout or well grounded in the doctrine of creation and divine providence,and they don't check to see if scientific theories harmonize with Christian doctrine and are logical. They are too deferential towards science in regard to explaining phenomena,and they are easily impressed with mere evidence,as if evidence always makes self-evident the claims of those who present it.

You do realize Pope Benedict XVI is fine with Evolution, right?

The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

 

[Freedom63]

Christians are in the majority in the US and most of those that accept evolution theory do so without scrutinizing it. They just figure that the scientists are probably right. Most Christians in the US are not devout or well grounded in the doctrine of creation and divine providence,and they don't check to see if scientific theories harmonize with Christian doctrine and are logical. They are too deferential towards science in regard to explaining phenomena,and they are easily impressed with mere evidence,as if evidence always makes self-evident the claims of those who present it.
...

I believe this to be a profoundly biased observation that has no basis in fact whatsoever. It is pure opinion for the purpose of maintaining religious dogma. In truth most Theistic Evolutionists such as myself have explored both the science and the theology to a far greater degree than the literalist who merely repeats the talking points of their uneducated leaders.

 

[shernren]

It does not exclude God in my view. I said that it is not necessary to bring up God when explaining the effects of gravity,because it seems to be a purely natural force.

As I have argued before (and you have not answered), you are on far shakier footing when you try to apply gravity to the sun than when you try to apply the known laws of physics and chemistry to a living being.

If you shoot a realistic anatomical dummy in the face, and you shoot a real live human in the face, you will get the exact same splatter - so physics works.

If you lock a man in a closed room full of carbon monoxide, he will suffocate. Draw some of his blood and expose it to carbon monoxide, and it will also be rendered incapable of absorbing oxygen - so chemistry works.

But when have you ever drawn a sample of matter from the Sun and showed that it falls to earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second squared? Nobody has ever done that before.

So the fact is that you have less reason to believe that science works on celestial matter as opposed to terrestrial matter than to believe that science works on living matter as opposed to non-living matter. The only reason you believe otherwise is because you have been brainwashed by the prevailing culture of the world that seeks to remove God from the cosmos - and because, ironically enough for someone who claims to know the Catholic Church's opinion on things, you are not at all familiar with the worldview of Aristotle and the Fathers of the Church.