Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism

[philadiddle]

Either you profess a faith in the God as Creator or you don't, if you rail against Creationists continuously then I am left to conclude that you don't.

I think this is the main problem here. You seem to think that the only way God can work is through divine fiat.

A simple analogy is the weather. The bible says that God commands the weather and controls it. Do you accept that He does or do you accept secular science (meteorology) that explains the weather through naturalistic processes? (I intentionally set that up as a false dicotomy.)

Also, when someone is prayed for for healing, and they get treatment and get well, does that mean that God didn't actually answer the prayer since we can attribute the outcome to naturalistic processes?

These two examples are the same way that we TEs see your demand for "divine fiat" or "evolution". I don't expect you to agree with evolution, but I hope you'll take the time to try to understand that we do accept Jesus as creator, even though the process is different than what you believe. I understand and accept that you believe Jesus is creator, even though I don't agree on how you think He did it.

If God is powerful enough to create the universe, which we all agree that He is, then wouldn't He set laws in place that would carry out His will without the need for constant supernatural intervention?

 

[sfs]

The evidence is ample and obvious, the only thing that distinguishes a creationist from an evolutionist is a belief that God created by divine fiat rather then exclusively naturalistic means, as described in Genesis.

That's not quite true -- nothing in theistic evolution requires that creation be by exclusively naturalistic means, just that it seems largely to have been by naturalistic means -- but it isn't too far from the truth. So you accept that the disagreement is about the mode of creation, not whether God is the creator. Great. But then you write this:

The only real statement I made I have repeated throughout the thread, 'to worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Him as Creator, to reject Christ as Creator is to reject the Gospel'.

But you've just written that creationists and evolutionists disagree about how God created, not whether he created. So literally no one in this discussion rejects Christ as creator -- but you keep treating us as if we did.

Just answer this question, Mark: if I believe God created by means of evolution, does that mean I believe that God created? Just answer yes or no.

I have accused you of nothing,

You said I attacked the idea of God as creator. You don't think that's an accusation when you're saying it about a Christian?

your the one who wanted to make this personal by calling me a liar. So tell me what you think I lied about or withdraw the accusation or do you have the same double standard for insults as you do for homology arguments?

I already told you what you lied about. You lied about me attacking the idea of God as creator. I have never attacked the idea of God as creator, and you are unable to find anyplace where I did. Your accusation was false. And as you might have gathered, I do not take this issue lightly.

I never made a single personal remark about you until you called me a liar. If you worship Christ as Creator then the indictment does not apply to you and if you believe that Christ is Creator then why so much animosity toward Creationists?

Mark, you are aware that I'm a theistic evolutionist, right? And you are aware that when you say that all theistic evolutionists reject God as a creator, you're including me, right? So you are aware that you are accusing me of rejecting God as creator, right? In what way is that not an attack on my Christianity?

If you don't like how I react then don't start off calling me a liar. All I said was that to worship Christ as Savior and Lord you must worship Christ Creator. It was theistic evolutionists who tried to make this mutually exclusive with the theory of evolution, not me. Why don't you get indignant with them?

Huh? Where is the TE on this board who tried to make the theory of evolution exclude the idea of God as creator?

I oppose theistic evolution because it does nothing more then attack creationists for believing the Bible as written. Come on Steve, I don't want to fight with you, I know your a Christian. You have been generous with you time and it's been a great privilege learning from you. If our only differences are the method by which God created then there would be no need for the highly inflammatory way theistic evolutionists go after creationists. However, they invariably do and you walk right in the middle of exactly that. Instead of being the peacemaker you joined the chorus.

Mark, you've seen me attack pro-evolution statements and you've seen me attack anti-evolution statements. I attack views that I think are factually in error. I'm going to continue to do so. It's not my fault that creationists are far more likely to abuse science than evolutionists are.

My issue is with Darwinism and it is mutually exclusive with Biblical theism and identical to atheistic materialism. If you are convinced that Darwinism has made it's case that we are the product of billions of years of continuous evolution, go in peace, I have no quarrel with you. I, on the other hand, remain skeptical of evolution and reserve the right to remain unconvinced. Theistic evolutionists see this as provocation and never fail to make it personal.

I have no problem with you rejecting Darwinism (although I'm perfectly happy to continue correcting anyone for misreporting science). I do have a problem with you trying to write my beliefs out of Christianity.

Accepting human evolution from that of apes is not only a rejection of the Pauline doctrine of original sin, it's a myth of human ancestry. When the New Testament writers mention Adam they speak of him as the first man and the reason why all of us are under the curse of sin and death. Paul tells us that 'by one man sin entered the world' and 'by one man's offense death reigned'. (Rom 5:12-19). Paul ties Adam directly to the need for justification and grace in his exposition of the Gospel in his letter to the Romans. Luke lists Adam in his genealogy calling him 'son of God' indicating he had no human parents but rather was created (Luke 3:23-28). My concern is simply this, the myth of human lineage linked to ape ancestry contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture and essential doctrine, specifically justification by faith. Paul is clear that all have sinned in Adam and that is the reason that we cannot keep the Mosaic law.

Fine. I disagree with you about the connections between doctrine and human ancestry, but I have no problem with you saying that my doctrine is bad (in your opinion), or that my views undermine key parts of the Gospel. Again, I don't agree, but I have no problem with open disagreement. Just don't say things about me that are false. And it's false to say that theistic evolutionists reject the idea of God as creator. Say we're wrong, say that our doctrine of creation is a compromise with the devil, say whatever -- as long as it's not false.

If this were over a minor difference of opinion with regards to God's method of creation the discussion would not turn into relentless personal attacks on creationists. If you don't like the content and character of the posts you are reading then why don't you correct the theistic evolutionists who dragged it down to this level?

Which posts? I looked (just now, for the first time) at the thread on faith requiring the acceptance of evolution. I thought the title was wrong and pointlessly provocative, but that seems already to have been well addressed in that thread by gluadys and shernren.

 

[Assyrian]

I do not rail against theistic evolutionists...

mark kennedy: All Theistic Evolutionists argue zealously against God as Creator
​

 

[pgp_protector]

sourced.

...snip...
All Theistic Evolutionists argue zealously against God as Creator, that is the central focus of every thread.
...snip....

I do not rail against theistic evolutionists, ...snip..

 

[metherion]

Note, I had to shorten most of your quotes because of the character limit.

Creation, ...foundation to the Christian faith.

Yes, but according to the definitions I gave and you did not reject, creation is NOT creationISM.

Why on earth would I want TEs to convert to creationism?

Perhaps because you insist that we don’t actually worship Christ as Saviour?

There are New Testament doctrinal issues at stake and for Creationists to adopt a view like this is absurd.

And there weren’t doctrinal issues at stake in the past that wound up resolved?

So you believe that God is Creator ...thanks for clarifying your views.

And this is a strawman from ridicule.

Right! You thought it was important to oppose...Evolutionists always do.

Not what was said, and an attack against ALL who accept evolution.

All Theistic Evolutionists argue zealously against God as Creator,

And again, no we don’t. This is a straight up lie. This is why you were called a liar. Everyone on this subforum accepts the Nicene Creed, everyone on the subforum worships God as Creator, and here you are telling all of us that we do not. This, in fact, DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS what you said in post #7,

If they believe that God is 'maker of heaven and earth, then they believe in God as Creator.

You cannot hold both stances, they are contradictory.

Theistic Evolutionists rail constantly and as scathingly as possible for that reason.

Okay. Do us a favor. With the exception of ‘liar’, list every constant and scathing personal insult hurled against you in this thread. Take a whole post to do just this part, if you want.

I can see how you might think I misrepresented Theistic Evolutionists

No ‘might’ about it, you did. And you contradict yourself on this point, as I posted above. If you are willfully contradicting yourself, then at least one of the contradicting statements (if not both) must be a falsehood.

I have never slandered... I don't tell the half of it.

Really? What about the above posts? Do you not see that attacks you make in each post?

Now that is all I really said ...you join right in the chorus

Again, would you like to list all the ad homs and other attacks just in this thread for us?

The only explanation for this i... a belief in God as Creator.

Except it ISN”T, it is a belief in the method of creation. Remember? Back up where I listed your quote from post #7? Where you said everyone who believes in a certain section of the Nicene Creed believes in God as Creator? And how by being on this subforum, everyone here DOES accept that certain section of the Nicene Creed?

More specifically the only thing that marks a Biblical Creationist is that he believe that God created Adam.

Nope. Among the TEs here, there is a wide variety of views, and some of us do believe that God created Adam. Next?

That's the only doctrinal issue and should be the only difference.

Really? I thought there were New Testament doctrineS, PLURAL, at stake?

I did not come against theistic evolutionists like an angry mob...Theistic Evolution is either a fundamental misunderstanding of the Gospel or rejection of it.

Really? So none of us believe the Bible as written, and we all reject Christ as Creator, Saviour, AND Lord?

Not because the Gospel is contrary ...contentious nature of theistic evolutionist arguments.

Divisive arguments like ‘everyone who doesn’t accept the Bible as I do doesn’t worship Christ as Lord’?

You can't reject every creationist you encounter and creationism at large and then act indignant when I conclude you reject God as Creator.

Actually, yes he can, because as has been pointed out, especially in my definitions, which you did not reject... creationism is NOT creation, and to believe in creation, one does not need to believe in creationISM.

And frankly, it disgusts me that professing Christians ... it just doesn't work that way.

So it’s fine if professing Christians lie about their fellow Christians’ belief in Christ as Lord for not believing the same thing about God made the universe? And yet you claim martyrdom and constant attack? Who is trying to have their cake and eat it, too?

I do not rail against theistic evolutionists, ... any Creationist that dare pop their head up is immediately a target and you all join in.

Really? So the constant calls about persecution by all TEs, the claim that all TEs do is attack, the lies about our belief in Christ as Lord, that appear in nearly every post, that’s not railing?

You completely ignored the post you quoted and accused me of doing what all theistic evolutionists come on here to do, rail against a particular view of creation.

Ah, it is quite clear how in that post he was saying just how wrong creationism is and how everyone who believes in it is stupid. Except... not.
And also, did you just admit that creationism is just A PARTICULAR VIEW OF CREATION? Which means *gasp* there are OTHER VIEWS? So creationism ISN”T the same thing as creation?

It is theistic evolution that 'presented creationism and evolution as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives'.

Really? The entire viewpoint itself is that way? It couldn’t be the other way around, what with websites like AIG and their statements of faith doing it?

Don't pretend now it's the creationist who turned this into a grudge match when all theistic evolutionists come on here to do is insult creationists.

Really? So no TE here has ever had a good point about anything, since all we do is attack?
And you ‘don’t rail’ against TEs and ‘don’t lie’ about what TEs believe and do?

One that includes worshiping Christ as Creator.

But he does, by accepting teh Nicene creed, according to your words in post #7.

The evidence is ample and obvious, ... 'to worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Him as Creator, to reject Christ as Creator is to reject the Gospel'.

Actually, no, it isn’t, using the definitions I gave that you didn’t reject.

Also, I’ve seen the other statements constantly repeated, every post, or very close to it:
All TEs do is attack creationists.
I’m mobbed with ad hominem attacks.
I’m constantly insulted by TEs.
TEs don’t believe the Bible as written.
I never do anything of the sort.

Then again, those aren’t real statements, because they simply are not true.

Theistic evolutionists do one thing and one thing only, ... make this personal by calling me a liar

See, there you go. TEs only attack. TEs don’t believe the Bible as written. I don’t do anything of the sort.

I accused you of nothing, my issue is with the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes and you know this.

No, you accused him (and me, and most of the people in this thread) of not worshipping Christ as Lord. And of constantly attacking you. And of never making a contribution, but only attacking, attacking, attacking. After all, if ‘the only the TEs do is attack those with alternative views’, there’s no time left for making any contributions.

I never made a single personal remark about you until you called me a liar.

No, you made false blanket statements about an entire system of belief that includes him, and me. You don’t have to say SFS BELIEVES SOMETHING SPECIFIC THAT IS BAD to be insulting him and his beliefs.

If you worship Christ as Creator then the indictment does not apply to you and if you believe that Christ is Creator then why so much animosity toward Creationists?

Except according to what you said in post #7, what you are trying to pull does not apply to ANYBODY HERE, and you should go to the unorthodox theology section where the Nicene Creed is not accepted and ply your trade there. As for the animosity, I suspect we’re taking it poorly that you are lying about all of us.

They argue continuously against creationist views that can only be distinguished from theistic evolutionists by believing the Genesis account as written.

No, I’m pretty sure there are other distinguishing characteristics.

If there is any place where the theistic evolutionist affirms the role of God in the creation of man, life or the heavens and the earth as described in Scripture I have yet to see it.

Post #6?

You know very well that each and every Theistic Evolutionist/Evolutionary Creationist on this board believes that God is our Creator and confesses belief in:

"...one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen."

Post #8?

And, since to be on this board, we all have to accept that God is "maker of heaven and earth",

Post #24?

I do not argue against Christ as Creator or against creation.

Post #38?

I agree with that, as do my TE friends here. And we all believe that Christ is the creator.

Post #39?

TE's argue zealously that God is a creator God (as been repeated ad nauseum in this thread alone).

Post #41?

I believe that God is the creator of everything, and you keep telling the world that I deny that (and even zealously attack it).

How about the fact that we are all on this board, which requires acceptance of the Nicene Creed, which you YOURSELF said means we believe in Christ as Creator?

Either you profess a faith in the God as Creator or you don't, if you rail against Creationists continuously then I am left to conclude that you don't.

Except on the first page of the thread, you accepted that we all do by your quote in post #7. And against, show us all the examples of the railing and the persistent, omnipresent attacks.

Thus the difference between a Creationist and a Biblical Creationist if there was ever a difference to being with.

Ah, so according to YOUR definition (which you never gave us), a creationist (I’m going to call it a MK creationist to avoid confusion) believes that “God created everything” and a Biblical Creationist believes “God created a literal Adam”? So we are all MK Creationists! So this entire thread has been pointless, since the views you are attacking are held by NOBODY!

First of all Creationism does not reject evolution, that's absurd.

Really? So all the talks by Kent Hovind, AIG, etc, saying evolution is wrong don’t exist? So all the threads in the creationism subforum don’t exist? So all the people saying that evolution is from demons in Christian Apologetics and Christian Philosophy and Ethics don’t exist? No, it’s not absurd.

This is not how theistic evolutionists approach the subject, ... invariably resorting to personal attacks on credibility, intellectual integrity and basic morality.

So, again, blanket attack on all TEs that we have nothing to offer, that all WE do is attack, that we just ad hom the day away.

All I said was that to worship Christ as Savior and Lord you must worship Christ Creator. It was theistic evolutionists who tried to make this mutually exclusive with the theory of evolution, not me.

Really? So who was the one saying TEs don’t accept God as Creator? Who was the one who said “You either believe the Scriptures or you don't.”?
Who was the one who quoted and linked to the blog that has this as the starter to the paragraph before the quote in the post?

The evolutionary lie is so pointedly antithetical to Christian truth that it would seem unthinkable for evangelical Christians to compromise with evolutionary science in any degree.

Really, now, who is the one saying you can’t worship Christ as Lord and accept evolution? Pretty sure that would count as being mutually exclusive to creationism... except MK Creationism, which I somehow doubt is what you meant.

My issue is with Darwinism ... go in peace, I have no quarrel with you.

Except telling us we don’t believe in Christ as Lord.

Come on Steve, I don't want to fight with you, I know your a Christian.

Except you are accusing him of NOT being one, of rejecting Christ as Lord.

My issue is with Darwinism and it is mutually exclusive with Biblical theism and identical to atheistic materialism.

Define Darwinism. I’m pretty sure it’s not the currently accepted biological ToE.

If you are convinced that Darwinism has made it's case that we are the product of billions of years of continuous evolution, go in peace, I have no quarrel with you.

Except for telling so many of us that we don’t believe Christ is Lord.

Accepting human evolution ... Paul is clear that all have sinned in Adam and that is the reason that we cannot keep the Mosaic law.

If you choose to believe this as part of your faith, fine. But a lot of us don’t see it that way.

Also, isn't that more than one doctrine? Justification by faith, original sin, etc? I thought, up above, you said there was only one doctrine at stake, that God created Adam.

Charles Darwin in the preface to ‘On the Origin of Species’ credits Jean-Baptiste Lamarck with being the first man to propose that:

So why are you still cutting out the middle?

This is what I have come to recognize as an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic explanations for the lineage of all living things.

Except it isn’t a priori because, in the sentences after you ended the quote, Darwin talks about the things Lamarck studied/saw that lead him to that conclusion. And there has been much more evidence since. And if a conclusion comes from observation and evidence, it is not a priori.

For years I focused exclusively on the Scientific literature regarding Chimpanzee and Human common ancestry and found that the human brain had neither the time nor the means to have evolved from that of apes.

Except for omitting all examples of certain brain sizes to make it seem like there is a gap.

If this were over a minor difference of opinion with regards to God's method of creation the discussion would not turn into relentless personal attacks on creationists.


Where has it? I see attacks on TEs nearly every post. I would like to see the list of the continuous attacks BY TEs in every post.

Metherion

 

[Willtor]

I do not rail against theistic evolutionists, they invariably join together like a mob and heap as much derision on me as possible. This isn't just me, any Creationist that dare pop their head up is immediately a target and you all join in.

Whens that last time a Creationist posted on here and was not immediately insulted? You completely ignored the post you quoted and accused me of doing what all theistic evolutionists come on here to do, rail against a particular view of creation.

What? I cited a clarifying quote from Pope Benedict. He distinguishes the doctrine of creation from creationism, just as TEs do.

It is theistic evolution that 'presented creationism and evolution as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives'. Don't pretend now it's the creationist who turned this into a grudge match when all theistic evolutionists come on here to do is insult creationists.

Creationism and evolution, yes. Not creation and evolution. The distinction: creationism is a particular set of doctrines designed to combat evolution and geology in the early 1900s. Creation is the doctrine that God made all that is (seen and unseen) from nothing. If you want to call creationism what I am calling creation, then we are both creationists.

Repent of your divisive and contentious spirit and perhaps God will bless you with a clearing understanding of the Gospel. One that includes worshiping Christ as Creator.

Haha! Saying that, one might think you'd never read any of our posts. I already worship Christ as Creator.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think this is the main problem here. You seem to think that the only way God can work is through divine fiat.

The Hebrew word for creation 'Bara' is a divine fiat. Never said it had to be that way, just saying that the original creation has to be on that scale including making Adam a living soul. Moses is unambiguous about how God created Adam from dust and Eve from a rib. I don't know how you define 'fiat' but that is clearly a miracle.

A simple analogy is the weather. The bible says that God commands the weather and controls it. Do you accept that He does or do you accept secular science (meteorology) that explains the weather through naturalistic processes? (I intentionally set that up as a false dicotomy.)

God can withhold the rain and God can bring rain in abundance and does. God can cover Himself in a storm as he did when he spoke to Job from the whirlwind or when Jesus calm the Sea of Galilee. These are interventions, special creation is such a miracle not very different from the one that makes a believer a new creature in Christ.

Also, when someone is prayed for for healing, and they get treatment and get well, does that mean that God didn't actually answer the prayer since we can attribute the outcome to naturalistic processes?

Sometimes...

These two examples are the same way that we TEs see your demand for "divine fiat" or "evolution". I don't expect you to agree with evolution, but I hope you'll take the time to try to understand that we do accept Jesus as creator, even though the process is different than what you believe. I understand and accept that you believe Jesus is creator, even though I don't agree on how you think He did it.

That would be nice, it would be great if we could talk to one another on that level. You have no idea how many Creationists you have driven from these boards by hounding them with corrections, insults and an endless barrage of personal attacks.

I don't think you fully appreciate the fact that I know Christian theology, doctrine and apologetics. I'm not boasting, I really do know this stuff. I know how Theistic Evolution could work and the way it's argued on these boards is fatally flawed. I'm not judging you, I'd really like to help you but I can't if you are just going to talk to me like I'm a fool.

If God is powerful enough to create the universe, which we all agree that He is, then wouldn't He set laws in place that would carry out His will without the need for constant supernatural intervention?

Exactly what Darwin said, without the reference to God of course. Anytime God is even present it's supernatural because God does as he pleases and he is not limited to natural laws. I refuse the accept that the evidence for evolution is conclusive and that God as Creator is an contrary to science or even evolution.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[philadiddle]

I'd really like to help you but I can't if you are just going to talk to me like I'm a fool.

I never intended to imply that you are a fool. Before we go on can you show me what I said that made you think that? I would like to avoid that kind of insinuation in the future.

I refuse the accept that the evidence for evolution is conclusive and that God as Creator is an contrary to science or even evolution.

I'm not asking you to accept evolution, I'm asking you to accept that I think that God can work through natural processes.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's not quite true -- nothing in theistic evolution requires that creation be by exclusively naturalistic means, just that it seems largely to have been by naturalistic means -- but it isn't too far from the truth. So you accept that the disagreement is about the mode of creation, not whether God is the creator. Great. But then you write this:
But you've just written that creationists and evolutionists disagree about how God created, not whether he created. So literally no one in this discussion rejects Christ as creator -- but you keep treating us as if we did.

Just answer this question, Mark: if I believe God created by means of evolution, does that mean I believe that God created? Just answer yes or no.

When you address my posts you answer as you see fit and when I answer your questions I will answer as I see fit and it's not a yes or no question. Either way, the answer has to be qualified which is the whole problem with the origins debate in the first place.

Were you 'born again' by natural law or was it a miracle? It could mean that you believe that God created the means for adaptive evolution which I would have no issue with. Honestly I don't know what it means to say God created evolution since creation is a miracle and evolution is a naturalistic process. The original creation is always a miracle and that is the only thing that distinguishes creationists from evolutionists and it's the root word, 'creation'.

It's rather curious, it we disagree only with regards to method then there would only be one way I could answer yes. You would have to solve the evolution/creation controversy by treating it as a paradox. Dismissing creationism as psuedo-science on the other hand is a rejection of God as Creator, I mean seriously, what else could it be?

You said I attacked the idea of God as creator. You don't think that's an accusation when you're saying it about a Christian?

Darwinism is a philosophy that is incompatible with Christian theism. 19th century naturalism does not stop at creation, it's a transcendent philosophy that Danial Dennet described as universal acid. As far as the perceived accusation that your not a Christian because you categorically reject the historical content of Genesis 1 and 2, that's straight forward enough. Unless this is a qualified position you are undermining the very point of the Genesis creation account, God made nature. In pagan mythology the elements proceeded the creation of the gods, did you know that Steve?

What is far more important, creationists are ridiculed shamelessly on these boards being treated as fools, cowards and liars early in every thread the participate in. Why is that Steve? Isn't it because they have the audacity to believe the Scriptures as the are written, in the beginning God created? What am I supposed to think, it would not be so bad if it were not so constant.

I already told you what you lied about. You lied about me attacking the idea of God as creator. I have never attacked the idea of God as creator, and you are unable to find anyplace where I did. Your accusation was false. And as you might have gathered, I do not take this issue lightly.

Nor should you but what else are we talking about if it's not God as Creator? You can accept the first verse of Genesis one but dismiss the rest of it along with most of the next chapter. Are you seriously trying to argue that this is not a rejection of God as Creator?

I honestly wouldn't have a problem with it if it were qualified and Creationists were not continuously being hammered.

Mark, you are aware that I'm a theistic evolutionist, right? And you are aware that when you say that all theistic evolutionists reject God as a creator, you're including me, right? So you are aware that you are accusing me of rejecting God as creator, right? In what way is that not an attack on my Christianity?

Go ahead and attack my 'Christianity' Steve, really, I don't mind a bit. Either the Holy Spirit indwells me by the same power that called light from the darkness and raised Christ from the dead or He does not. Theistic evolution is nothing more then an attack on creationism, now consider the root word and understand, there is little else it could be except a rejection of God as Creator.

Now if it's not Steve then just say that, trust me I won't pursue it any further then that. Don't you think I want to know that, can't you see that's the whole point? I search myself daily to see whether or not I'm in the faith and there is a reason I studied apologetics. I landed on the believing side not because Christ was credible among academics or scientists. I came to believe because of a miracle that I regard as identical to the original creation.

Huh? Where is the TE on this board who tried to make the theory of evolution exclude the idea of God as creator?

You all do it. Personally I think special creation makes no sense without evolution on a massive scale, one that would have scared Darwin to death. If they are not mutually exclusive then why is it that Creationists cannot post to any board without being attacked theistic evolutionists, agnostics and atheists who never attack one another?

Mark, you've seen me attack pro-evolution statements and you've seen me attack anti-evolution statements. I attack views that I think are factually in error. I'm going to continue to do so. It's not my fault that creationists are far more likely to abuse science than evolutionists are.

I rarely see a creationist who is even interested in science. No matter what they happen to believe or why they will be constantly corrected and faults will either be exaggerated or fabricated, not because they tend to make mistakes but because they are Creationists.

But to answer your question, yes I have seen you correct evolutionists and creationists with a remarkably gracious tone. Look at the thread Steve, is there anything else in this one but corrections? Look at the Origins forums and pick a thread at random, is there anything else but evolutionists mobbing creationists with corrections?

You can't attacks creationists, creationism and the Biblical doctrine of creation without rejecting God as Creator. It's all that happens on here, now if I'm mistaken about this then correct me but oh wait...that's all you have been doing since first posting to the thread.

I have no problem with you rejecting Darwinism (although I'm perfectly happy to continue correcting anyone for misreporting science). I do have a problem with you trying to write my beliefs out of Christianity.

Hang on now, I don't write you beliefs off. What I think is happening here is a worldly philosophy has you convinced that it is compatible with Christian theism. When you are in Christ there is nothing I can do about your beliefs except test them, which only makes them stronger.

Did you have an issue with Papias saying that you have to accept evolution in order to be a Christian? You should have...

Fine. I disagree with you about the connections between doctrine and human ancestry, but I have no problem with you saying that my doctrine is bad (in your opinion), or that my views undermine key parts of the Gospel. Again, I don't agree, but I have no problem with open disagreement. Just don't say things about me that are false. And it's false to say that theistic evolutionists reject the idea of God as creator. Say we're wrong, say that our doctrine of creation is a compromise with the devil, say whatever -- as long as it's not false.
Which posts? I looked (just now, for the first time) at the thread on faith requiring the acceptance of evolution. I thought the title was wrong and pointlessly provocative, but that seems already to have been well addressed in that thread by gluadys and shernren.

Again, consider the root word of creationism and then tell me how you can reject creationism categorically without rejecting God as Creator. When I said that to worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Christ as Creator where were the amens? There were none and your TE cohorts started dragging it down to this level, they always do.

Theistic evolution has never been anything more then an attack on creationism. Am I mistaken when I say this is a rejection of God as Creator? I'm open to that but I insist on being convinced like a reasonable person, rather then scolded like a foolish child.

See the difference?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I never intended to imply that you are a fool. Before we go on can you show me what I said that made you think that? I would like to avoid that kind of insinuation in the future.

I have not had a problem one with you in some time. If you think I was even mildly annoyed by anything you said then I worded it poorly.

I'm not asking you to accept evolution, I'm asking you to accept that I think that God can work through natural processes.

I have long considered that a viable alternative to creationism. To be honest the 6 days of creation are a lock, I don't see any way around it but if I did it would cause no crisis of faith for me. As far as a global flood I wish I did believe it was local, that one drive me up the wall.

The point being it would be no struggle for me to be a theistic evolutionist, I even know how the theology could be reconciled. The fact is that evolution is far more then a theory of origins and frankly it gives me the creeps. Not because my belief system will crumble, I was convinced of the truth of the Gospel based on the New Testament not Genesis.

I'm just convinced that the theory of evolution has not made the case for universal common descent. As far as I'm concerned anything above the level of genus is suspect and I'm a young earth creationist by default. While I bear no real malice against alternative views I will not accept TOE simply because God cannot be an explanation because God as a cause in unscientific.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[philadiddle]

I have not had a problem one with you in some time. If you think I was even mildly annoyed by anything you said then I worded it poorly.

I have long considered that a viable alternative to creationism. To be honest the 6 days of creation are a lock, I don't see any way around it but if I did it would cause no crisis of faith for me. As far as a global flood I wish I did believe it was local, that one drive me up the wall.

The point being it would be no struggle for me to be a theistic evolutionist, I even know how the theology could be reconciled. The fact is that evolution is far more then a theory of origins and frankly it gives me the creeps. Not because my belief system will crumble, I was convinced of the truth of the Gospel based on the New Testament not Genesis.

I'm just convinced that the theory of evolution has not made the case for universal common descent. As far as I'm concerned anything above the level of genus is suspect and I'm a young earth creationist by default. While I bear no real malice against alternative views I will not accept TOE simply because God cannot be an explanation because God as a cause in unscientific.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I don't think I'm understanding this post. Well, I understand it and appreciate, but in the context of your previous posts I'm finding it hard to understand.

It seems that you are saying you understand how theology would work with evolution, yet you have been saying all along how evolution contradicts the Christian view. Do you see how this could be hard for me to follow?

Another point of clarification I'd like is that you said the 6 days of creation seems to be a lock, do you mean theologically or scientifically?

 

[Assyrian]

The Hebrew word for creation 'Bara' is a divine fiat. Never said it had to be that way, just saying that the original creation has to be on that scale including making Adam a living soul.

Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created (bara) the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose.
Ezek 21:28 "And you, son of man, prophesy, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD concerning the Ammonites ... 30 Return it to its sheath. In the place where you were created (bara), in the land of your origin, I will judge you.
The creation of the smith had nothing to do with Mr and Mrs Smith getting together nine months before baby Smith was born? The creation of the Ammonite nation had nothing to do with Lot's daughters getting him drunk? Because God couldn't possibly use natural processes when he creates. Like you say, it doesn't have to be this way, the problem is creationists make up their own definition of 'create' ignoring how the word is used in the bible to include God's use of natural processes

Moses is unambiguous about how God created Adam from dust and Eve from a rib.

Moses was just as unambiguous that the Isrealites were flown out of Egypt on the backs of eagles Exodus 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Your 'unambiguous' is begging the question of whether Genesis should be interpreted literally.

I don't know how you define 'fiat' but that is clearly a miracle.

It is Latin for 'let there be', and is how the Vulgate translates the qal imperfect of verb 'to be' hayah in two verses in Genesis 1. It wasn't used in any verses in Genesis talking about creation, it was used in parallel to asah 'made' in verses 6&7 for God making the firmament. Of course asah is also used in parallel to God commanding the earth to produce living creatures.
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds..."
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds...
Of course commanding the earth to produce living creatures leaves open the possibility of natural processes being involved. So 'fiat' refers to god commanding something to happen, but say nothing about whether natural processes are used or not.

God can withhold the rain and God can bring rain in abundance and does. God can cover Himself in a storm as he did when he spoke to Job from the whirlwind or when Jesus calm the Sea of Galilee. These are interventions, special creation is such a miracle not very different from the one that makes a believer a new creature in Christ.

Assuming you know how God withholds the rain or sends it in abundance. But I would have though the new creation was fundamentally different from the old creation, at least Paul goes to great lengths to distinguish between them in 1Cor15, between the natural and the spiritual.

...Exactly what Darwin said, without the reference to God of course. Anytime God is even present it's supernatural because God does as he pleases and he is not limited to natural laws.

Are you sure you don't want to rephrase this? Because as it stands, you either have to deny all natural processes, or God's omnipresence.

 

[Papias]

biblebeliver wrote:

For the record, the Pope and the majority of the Catholic Church accepts theistic evolution, the official position of the Church is that it does not conflict with Biblical teaching.

To which Anthony responded:
​

The pope has expressed doubts about the theory of evolution,so it is wrong to say that he accepts theistic evolution,which is nothing but belief in the scientific theory,which is naturalistic and neo-Darwinist,and saying "God did it".

Sorry, theistic evolution is by definition not naturalistic. What part of "theistic" do you fail to understand, after many post and many threads, you still post saying that theistic evolution isn't theistic. It makes it harder and harder to think that you simply don't understand, and harder to avoid the conclusion that you are being dishonest.

The pope and the Church have not accepted the theory of evolution.

Sure they have, as an allowable and supported view of origins, as long as it is theistic evolution and not atheistic evolution.

The rest of Anthony's post repeats the same deceptive tactic he's used over and over. That tactic is as follows:

1. Find quotes where the Catholic church has argued against atheistic evolution. (not hard, since we all agree that atheistic evolution is wrong).

2. Show these and then try to do a bait and switch to argue that they are actually arguing against any evolution, and specifically against theistic evolution.

3. hide, deny, or make excuses for the many sources that show clear support for theistic evolution from the Vatican and the Pope.


You can see all of these in his post, most clearly in the fact that he present many quotes against atheistic evolution, and then tries to suggest that these are against theistic evolution, while hiding the fact that the very article he quotes has Cardinal Schonborn saying that "Common descent might be true, but..."

The document from the ITC, headed by the Pope, is a clear exposition of theistic evolution, throughout the document. The whole document is here: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/RATZINGER.PDF

and it includes this section:

The place of human beings in the history of this evolving universe, as it has been charted by modern sciences, can only be seen in its complete reality in the light of faith, as a personal history of the engagement of the triune God with creaturely persons.

63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. 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. .....
​

(and please do read the whole thing.)

Papias

 

[philadiddle]

The document from the ITC, headed by the Pope, is a clear exposition of theistic evolution, throughout the document. The whole document is here: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/RATZINGER.PDF

I have read the entire article and nothing in there supports evolution. Better luck next time.

 

[Papias]

Philaddle, do you think it supports YEC?

 

[philadiddle]

Philaddle, do you think it supports YEC?

No. I'm just yankin yer chain.

 

[Papias]

Ha, ha, I thought so!

Ok, at first ya got me....

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think I'm understanding this post. Well, I understand it and appreciate, but in the context of your previous posts I'm finding it hard to understand.

Probably because there are two things being discussed here. First of all there is core conviction and then the doctrinal issues that are supposed to follow. My issues with evolution are philosophical and simple cause and effect relationships, my issues with Theistic Evolution are almost exclusively doctrinal. The 19th century naturalistic assumption embodied in the Modern Synthesis (aka Darwinism) are clearly in conflict with sound doctrine.

This thread is a prime example of ad hominems taking over the show. That's all that will be discussed because the real objective is to make creationists look foolish. The only real issue there is the creation of life in general and the creation of Adam and Eve specifically. Theistic Evolutionists are continuously at odds with creationism and this is simply not going to produce sound doctrine. The only thing that distinguishes creationists from evolutionists is God as Creator, that is to say, God as the cause of life created rather then evolved by exclusively naturalistic means.

It seems that you are saying you understand how theology would work with evolution, yet you have been saying all along how evolution contradicts the Christian view. Do you see how this could be hard for me to follow?

I've never said that evolution is contrary to sound doctrine, it's Darwinian naturalistic assumptions. Evolution is clearly defined as the change of alleles in populations over time, what is being argued for without qualification is universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means (aka natural law) which is contrary to the foundational doctrine of God as Creator.l

Another point of clarification I'd like is that you said the 6 days of creation seems to be a lock, do you mean theologically or scientifically?

I mean as an interpretive challenge in dealing with Genesis as an historical narrative. While this is subject to a number of alternatives none of them do justice to the hermeneutics required to preserve the integrity of the continued witness to the redemptive history contained in Scripture. Creation is a foundational doctrine which is why John, Hebrews and Romans begin by emphasizing creation as foundational.

Personal core convictions are neither suspect nor vulnerable, if your confidence is in the risen Savior then what I think of it means next to nothing. What I am dealing with are Theistic Evolutionists that are systematically, purposely and with fevered zeal attacking creationists on a personal level.

In short, the attack in this thread is from the spoilers who decided to turn this into an indictment. Now that's all anyone wants to talk about instead of focusing on the real issue of God as Creator being essential Christian theism.

By the way, questioning or reassuring others about whether or not they are in the faith is against my religion. My issue is the fact that Theistic Evolutionists are attacking a core doctrine and this tells me one thing. The universal acid of Darwinism is eroding sound doctrine, it's transcendental, nothing is safe and nothing is sacred.

Finally I know exactly how TOE can be reconciled with Christian theism, I have known for years. The problem is that I have yet to see an honest effort to do that and it offends me greatly.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[philadiddle]

Thanks for the response Mark.

To further clarify your view, do you think that theistic evolution and Darwinian naturalistic assumptions are synonomous? If you think there is a difference, then what is that difference?

 

[mark kennedy]

Thanks for the response Mark.

To further clarify your view, do you think that theistic evolution and Darwinian naturalistic assumptions are synonomous? If you think there is a difference, then what is that difference?

You tell me, at what point can we scientifically conclude special creation? Genus, Phylum, Kingdom? More importantly based on what, the clear testimony of Scripture, the limits of and lack of evidence for molecular mechanisms required?

I'm saying that the a priori assumption of universal common descent is mutually exclusive with God as Creator. I'm saying that Darwinian naturalistic assumptions are universal acid, a transcendent metaphysical axiom that excludes God as cause, period.

So if you think there is an exception or I am exaggerating or unfairly characterizing Theistic Evolution then feel free to show me the error in my reasoning.

Grace and peace,
Mark