Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism

[Assyrian]

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.

Doesn't seem a terribly stable system.
s=ut+½at²
s the distance to the sun is 149,597,892,000 meters
u the initial velocity is 0
a the acceleration is 9.81
½x9.81xt²=149,597,892,000
t²=2x149,597,892,000/9.81
t=√¯(2x149,597,892,000/9.81)
=174,639.8 seconds
or 2 days 30 minutes 39.8 seconds for the sun to fall to earth.

If the sun was created on the fourth day, wouldn't it have hit earth on the sixth day?

 

[shernren]

Exactly.

The Bible says that all things hold together in Christ.

Only unwashed heathen could believe in such a godless theory as gravity.

 

[Papias]

Anthony wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

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.
​

Anthony, that's a string of statements of your opinion, with no basis in fact and no evidence offered for any of it. If you like, I can post the Gallup data showing that most evolution supporters in the US are Christian. Unless you have data to post in support of your points, then I hope you'll have the forthrightness to retract them as baseless. There is some data suggesting the opposite of your statements, that being that those who support evolution are consistently found to be more educated. As has been pointed out, it appears that those Christians who have scrutinized evolution are more likely to support it, the exact opposite of your statement. There is also data that top thelogians, both Protestant and Catholic tend to support evolution more than the laypeople, again showing that those who know the doctrines better are more likely to support evolution.

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.

And this statement isn't even a claim, but rather a judgement. Again, if you want to state a fact, please offer some support. Opinions, gut feelings and judgements are irrelevant.

​

Anthony wrote:

Papias wrote:

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".

Life itself is spirit and it cannot be made by men.

But the example above, which you apparently ignored, showed that life can indeed be directly made by men. Shernren gave many examles showing that life follows simple chemistry, with no need to notions like "life energy", phlogiston, or other ideas that were left behind in the 1800s.

​

Anthony wrote:

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.

Right! I think we agree here. That's what methodological naturalism is - simply the agreement that we are describing things in a naturalistic manner, leaving questions of God and ultimate cause outside of, and not in conflict with, science. That's what Gravity does, obstretrics does, and what evolution does. Evolution is simply describing what happened, not excluding what may be behind it (God).


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.
​

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
​

and ... What exactly about obstetrics is problematic?
​

All three of them exclude God (show me where in gravitational theory it mentions God, and where in obstetrics it mentions God, otherwise agree that they exclude God at least as much as evolution).

Plus, both Gravity and obstetrics conflict with scripture.

Gravity:

Gen 1 says:
God set the sun and moon in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.

See? it says they are up there because God set them up there, not because they are held up by orbits established by gravity. Gravity is evil, naturalistic, atheistic, God-excluding, and must be opposed!

Obstetrics:

Psalm 139 says:
For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

But obstetrics says that we don't see anyone doing any knitting, that no Godly knitting fingers appears inside the womb, but that instead babies form by naturalistic chemistry and biology! They even claim to know which chemicals do what at certain times. Obstetrics is evil, naturalistic, atheistic, God-excluding, and must be opposed!
​

It [gravity] does not exclude God in my view.

OK, then please show me where, in a standard textbook on gravitational theory, God is included. Is there a God variable in the G equation?

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.

So you are saying that anything, when understood by anyone in the universe, no longer is being done by God? But doesn't God undstand everything? So the existence of God causes God to cease to exist? See why I have a problem with that?

No,it (heb 1:3) does not say that God acts in nature in a uniform manner.

Sure it does. That's exactly what it says. Here it is:
​

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
​

"sustaining" means that God is doing everying, and is the one doing all "natural" laws. God is indeed keeping the moon in it's orbit, God is indeed knitting the baby in the womb, God is indeed evolving life on earth.


You see the same thing in John 5:17

Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.”
​

See? God is always working. That is by upholding and performing the natural laws, unless you are going to say that God is always, every second, performing continuous miracles, poofing up here and there, at all times.

The difference is the world I'm describing, where God is present in all, constantly active, verses the world described by deists and atheists, where the natural laws exclude God, and God is confined to the ever shrinking gaps in our knowledge, if he exists at all.

You can choose if you want to see the world my faith tells me God is, and has been, always working on, or the world the atheist describes without God present in "natural" processes. So far, you've been exclude God from any process that is understood, like gravity, evolution, and obstetrics.

Papias

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

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

He isn't fine with macro-evolution. He doesn't believe in the theory as a whole.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

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.

My opinion is based upon my reading of what theistic evolutionists' write,and my debating with them. All they do is put an illogical theistic spin on a naturalistic theory that has nature originating species by its own "mechanisms" and processes. They basically say,"God created all species,and the theory of evolution shows how he did it". But the theory does not allow or require God to be doing anything.

 

[metherion]

But the theory does not allow or require God to be doing anything.

Incorrect. It does not REQUIRE God to do anything SUPERNATURAL. It ALLOWS God to do what He wants, but shows what He DID DO. Unless you are trying to say that unless God is ACTIVELY performing miracles left and right, He is not doing anything. Is that what you are trying to say?

Furthermore, the ToE, as with any scientific theory, is not the type of naturalistic you seem to be referring to. It describes things naturally, and is discovered/implemented by methodological naturalism, but that is not philosophical naturalism. Since it is not philosophically naturalistic, it does not say that there is no God or that God cannot exist.

Metherion

 

[Papias]

Incariol -

It has been shown to Anthony many times that Pope Benedict supports theistic evolution. You can see those discussions on threads such as this one:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7562094-31/#post57956455


Simple statements like this very clear one from the commission the Pope led don't convince Anthony.

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
​

Papias

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Incorrect. It does not REQUIRE God to do anything SUPERNATURAL. It ALLOWS God to do what He wants, but shows what He DID DO. Unless you are trying to say that unless God is ACTIVELY performing miracles left and right, He is not doing anything. Is that what you are trying to say?

Everything that God does is supernatural,even when natural causes are involved. The reason why I say that evolution theory does not allow God to be doing anything is because it is a naturalistic theory and it attributes the origination of species to natural causes alone,and the wrong natural causes at that. I was referring to God's creative activity and providence for creation,which is not miraculous in the usual sense of the word. It is always occurring. God did not cease creating things after the initial work of creation. Every conception of an organism is an act of creation by the Spirit of God.

Furthermore, the ToE, as with any scientific theory, is not the type of naturalistic you seem to be referring to. It describes things naturally, and is discovered/implemented by methodological naturalism, but that is not philosophical naturalism. Since it is not philosophically naturalistic, it does not say that there is no God or that God cannot exist.

I was not referring to PM but to MN,which takes the same view of reality as PN. But he naturalistic view is the same whether in the context of philosophy or science. It is simply the idea that only nature exists. That is not a philosophy in itself,it is a false premise. MN is not necessary for valid experimentation,it has to do with how natural phenomena are explained. So there is no use in defending MN as if it were a legitimate approach to discovering the truth about nature. A false premise cannot be legitimate. My objection to evolution theory is not that it doesn't say that God exists,but that it does not acknowledge supernatural power where it ought to be acknowledged and that it makes illogical claims about the history of species based on illogical causal connections.

 

[gluadys]

Everything that God does is supernatural,even when natural causes are involved. . . . I was referring to God's creative activity and providence for creation,which is not miraculous in the usual sense of the word. It is always occurring. God did not cease creating things after the initial work of creation.
Every conception of an organism is an act of creation by the Spirit of God.

First let me say that I agree entirely with the paragraph above, except for the sentence I snipped out (see below).

My first question is this: Isn't God's creative activity and providence for creation which is not miraculous "in the usual sense of the word" synonymous with what is usually called "natural"? Surely, if the activity you are referring to here is not miraculous in the usual sense, it is what is usually called natural?

And in that case, why exclude evolution from this creative activity and providence for creation?



The sentence snipped was:.

The reason why I say that evolution theory does not allow God to be doing anything is because it is a naturalistic theory and it attributes the origination of species to natural causes alone,and the wrong natural causes at that. ​

I know that some people make a false distinction between "natural" and "done by God" and it is inevitable that the same people would incorrectly express evolution in those terms.

But evolutionary creationism explicitly rejects that false distinction. We would see evolution (and all natural processes) in exactly the terms you describe: God's creative activity and providence in creation in a mode that is not "miraculous in the usual sense of the word."

Yet it is surely just as miraculous--in the way you are defining it--as the conception of any new child of any species, and the Spirit of God has as much a role to play in the origin of species as in the origin of individuals.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Incariol -

It has been shown to Anthony many times that Pope Benedict supports theistic evolution. You can see those discussions on threads such as this one:

He supports the doctrine of creation. He does not believe in macro-evolution,
so he does not believe in the theory of evolution as theistic evolutionists do.

Simple statements like this very clear one from the commission the Pope led don't convince Anthony.

While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.
​

Papias

That is the scientific account of origins,as the document says,not the Church's account.

 

[mark kennedy]

He isn't fine with macro-evolution. He doesn't believe in the theory as a whole.

The Pope has said that theory and conjecture is permissible for a Catholic, it's not a ringing endorsement. Pope Benedict has some kind of an Intelligent Design view and has always held to the core doctrine of God as Creator.

Papias knows this, he is just counting on you not knowing it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

First let me say that I agree entirely with the paragraph above, except for the sentence I snipped out (see below).

My first question is this: Isn't God's creative activity and providence for creation which is not miraculous "in the usual sense of the word" synonymous with what is usually called "natural"? Surely, if the activity you are referring to here is not miraculous in the usual sense, it is what is usually called natural?

God's ongoing creative acts and providence are natural in the sense that the
natural things that happen are what usually happens. But these things - coming into existence,order and life - also involve directly supernatural power because God makes them happen directly. As the apostle Paul said,quoting the Greek poet Aratus,"In him we live and move and have our being."

And in that case, why exclude evolution from this creative activity and providence for creation?

Because I have no reason to believe that God creates living creatures through
a gradual developmental process. God creates living creatures immediately.
That is what happens at conception. There is no development that leads to the existence of individual creatures,and so there can be no evolution that leads to the existence of species. A species begins with an individual creature
which is created immediately. And besides this reason,I will not attribute to
God things that I do not believe happened. We should not attribute to God what cannot be proven to have happened. It is not that God could not have created species through evolution,it is that he does not seem to work that way. It is evident that he creates creatures at once,because they do,in fact,come into existence at once.

 

[KerrMetric]

We should not attribute to God what cannot be proven to have happened.

LOL - do you realise the implication of what you have just said here? You are at odds with almost every Creationist I have ever seen with this remark. In fact, your position is that of Theistic evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists.

It is evident that he creates creatures at once,because they come into existence at once.

A bizarre inference if ever there was one.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

The sentence snipped was:

The reason why I say that evolution theory does not allow God to be doing anything is because it is a naturalistic theory and it attributes the origination of species to natural causes alone,and the wrong natural causes at that. ​

I know that some people make a false distinction between "natural" and "done by God" and it is inevitable that the same people would incorrectly express evolution in those terms.

But evolutionary creationism explicitly rejects that false distinction. We would see evolution (and all natural processes) in exactly the terms you describe: God's creative activity and providence in creation in a mode that is not "miraculous in the usual sense of the word."

Yet it is surely just as miraculous--in the way you are defining it--as the conception of any new child of any species, and the Spirit of God has as much a role to play in the origin of species as in the origin of individuals.

Before we attribute to God an evolutionary way of creating species,we should be sure that it really happened. This cannot be done,and there is no logical or biological necessity that it did happen. The structural and genetic similarities
between species do not necessarily entail common ancestry,because they say nothing about reproductive connections,and there could have been many separate ancestries.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

LOL - do you realise the implication of what you have just said here? You are at odds with almost every Creationist I have ever seen with this remark. In fact, your position is that of Theistic evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists.

It is the narrative of evolution theory that cannot be proven to have happened.
I wasn't referring to whether or not God created the universe.
That God created the universe is evident from the existence of the universe.
Theistic evolutionists attribute to God a way of creating species that cannot be shown to have happened. Atheists don't attribute anything to God.

A bizarre inference if ever there was one.

There's nothing bizarre about it. I attribute to God immediate creation because that is what happens in natural reality.

 

[Greg1234]

First let me say that I agree entirely with the paragraph above, except for the sentence I snipped out (see below).

My first question is this: Isn't God's creative activity and providence for creation which is not miraculous "in the usual sense of the word" synonymous with what is usually called "natural"? Surely, if the activity you are referring to here is not miraculous in the usual sense, it is what is usually called natural?

It is not natural for bacteria to turn into a man. All flesh are not the same. This is basic, this is law, and this proceeds through every plane of activity. If natural and supernatural are the same then how about you call on materialists to accept the fact that God created different lifeforms. These ridiculously lopsided terms of surrender and stipulations will never carry through. "We take every organism on the planet and we'll say that God is responsible for a tiny microbe. That is until next Thursday when microbes become a gap in scientific knowledge not caused by God." The audacity. How about we give you Darwinists a single Kangaroo and within a week we come back for it.

Of course, Darwinism is merely the microcosmic pattern of a much larger problem enveloping modern thought. When Christian Darwinists choose to elect materialists as the autocrats of theological pursuits, due to whatever form of fear bestowed upon them, it will never end well. There are in fact repurcussions when the night of Darwinian revelry is over. While you carry Darwinism for materialistic thought it will be Christian descendants who will have no choice but to accept the dictums of every and any vagabond materialist due to the interpretive pathway carved by indentured Christians.

Every single treaty brought forward is for the betterment of materialism, whether it is laid ouright, or seductively coated with chocolate covered stratagems. On what basis? Don't think that these guys care about you people either. When your work is done theistic evolution will be viciously attacked and each one of you will be hacked. For now, all is calm. They absolutely adore you people and openly profess their love of your work. But for crying out loud, there can be no fear mongering.

And in that case, why exclude evolution from this creative activity and providence for creation?

Darwinism doesn't just exclude God from Creation. It excludes God, period. There is an evolutionary explanation for the origin of man, where the ancients got God from and why people believe in God today. All materialistic theories, all unacceptable. The influence of Creationism is extends to every single facet of theology and the origin of man is but one. A replacement with Darwinism is an overhaul. The materialists know that, the second word out of their mouth is evolution when talking about almost any aspect of theology. But it always seems like you people are the last to know. Maybe you should force them to debate you so that, as it's said, you're "in the know."

The sentence snipped was:.

The reason why I say that evolution theory does not allow God to be doing anything is because it is a naturalistic theory and it attributes the origination of species to natural causes alone,and the wrong natural causes at that. ​

I know that some people make a false distinction between "natural" and "done by God" and it is inevitable that the same people would incorrectly express evolution in those terms.

There isn't a false distinction, that's what materialism is and what materialists hold fast to in their abidance. You're the one pleading for conformity and concession on the part of idealism due to whatever honor you are tasked to bestow on these people. A need which has completely escaped me. You should be arguing for Darwinism and providing data for same. Why should someone have to tell you that asking a Christian to kneel when they see a materialist is a stretch? Or that vying for a materialistic takeover is completely beyond Darwinism and an attack on the very livelihood and persistence of theology?

But evolutionary creationism explicitly rejects that false distinction.

Evolutionary Creationism. How nice. I wonder which market is the target of this colorful wrapper.

We would see evolution (and all natural processes) in exactly the terms you describe: God's creative activity and providence in creation in a mode that is not "miraculous in the usual sense of the word."

Except for that fact that there is not a single law at that level, neither is it law for the law governing the activity of bacteria to morph it into a man.

Yet it is surely just as miraculous--in the way you are defining it--as the conception of any new child of any species, and the Spirit of God has as much a role to play in the origin of species as in the origin of individuals.

A miracle is in accordance with law.

 

[gluadys]

God's ongoing creative acts and providence are natural in the sense that the
natural things that happen are what usually happens. But these things - coming into existence,order and life - also involve directly supernatural power because God makes them happen directly. As the apostle Paul said,quoting the Greek poet Aratus,"In him we live and move and have our being."

OK. But I don't see anything there that excludes evolution. Biological evolution doesn't refer to the origin of being or of the orderly governance of creation or the origin of life. It fits the definition of natural you give here: things that happen that usually happen. In fact, it fits into the order of existence.

Because I have no reason to believe that God creates living creatures through
a gradual developmental process.

OK, so it's a personal belief and not something derived from either the study of creation or the precepts of theology.

I do see reason to believe that God creates ---not individual creatures--but ongoing populations through a gradual development process.

A species begins with an individual creature
which is created immediately.

No, nothing we know about species says they begin with an individual creature.

And besides this reason,I will not attribute to
God things that I do not believe happened.

That makes sense. I won't either. On the other hand, I will attribute to God what I do believe happened to bring the diversity of life as we know it into existence. And I am convinced that evolution happened.

We should not attribute to God what cannot be proven to have happened.

Should we not?

Then we should not attribute the incarnation of the Son to God, nor his resurrection, as well as a good many other events described in scripture.

It is not that God could not have created species through evolution,it is that he does not seem to work that way.

On what basis do you say that? I think it is pretty obvious that the species we know evolved and have been evolving for quite some time. So to me, it seems God did work that way.

It is evident that he creates creatures at once,because they do,in fact,come into existence at once.

What makes that evident to you? How do you account for the evidence cited in support of an evolutionary history?

 

[FlamingZword]

Species do not evolve they simply adapt to different conditions.
Which fits perfectly with a wise God who created resiliant animals, able to adapt to a changing world.

one-lord.org

 

[artybloke]

Species do not evolve they simply adapt to different conditions.

That's what evolution is. Adaptation to different conditions creates new species.

Do try and keep up...

 

[FlamingZword]

Adaptation does not produce new species.

a wild dog still a dog

a white finch ia still a finch,

they do not turn into different species.

one-lord.org