Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism

[gluadys]

My point is this, how far do you have to back up until God becomes a viable cause . . .

I don't think you need to back up at all. God is a viable cause at all times.

The question only makes sense if one has already excluded God from natural causes.

Specifically, at what point can we scientifically conclude special creation? Genus, Phylum, Kingdom?

The only biological level at which creation can take place is the species, or perhaps the individual or perhaps even one allele at a time. Taxa such as genus, order, phylum, etc. are only classificatory: groups of species.

And we cannot conclude any special (i.e. non-natural) creation scientifically at all. Science cannot make that kind of determination. The best science could do is say: "we have no evidence of a biological precursor to this species, nor of any relationship of this species to another."


Again, the question assumes that God's handiwork is not to be found in the natural processes which science can describe. It also assumes that science is called on to validate the work/existence of God by isolating some event that doesn't fit into any natural process: a classic example of god-of-the-gaps reasoning.

Are all of them the result of natural processes (aka natural law) or is there a point where the inference of a Creator is warranted? I say again...

Again the question assumes that natural law implies the absence of a Creator. I think the response of a TE is that natural processes in and of themselves warrant the inference of a Creator.

Did God create the core molecular mechanisms are do they always have naturalistic processes that represent the instrumental cause?

God certainly created the core molecular mechanisms. Whether they always act in strictly natural process is not something we can determine scientifically. They appear to, but what sign would appear to differentiate a gene duplication which occurs as part of the ordinary mutational process from one that was specially created? Unless God adds a tag to such "special creations" they are scientifically invisible.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

To me, one of the fundamentals of creation is that it is real and distinct from God: contingent yet autonomous, not a dream.

It would come down to what we mean by "real". I see contingent "reality" as merely a superimposition on Absolute reality. Ultimately it's as illusory as the snake we see when we look at a coiled up piece of rope in the dark. Snake is a superimposition upon the reality - rope. This world experience has no reality apart from God. Ultimately I don't think the word "contingent" and "reality" go too well together at all.. Contingency shows a lack of being or reality. This isn't just Hindu thought but a common idea in Western / Greek philosophy, from Parmenides to Plotinus.

Does creation have being in and of itself apart from God? Could it continue on without him?

If we live in a dream, what happens to us when the dreamer awakes?

The body mind organism itself has a dream like existence. Composed of the "stuff" of the dream. There is a waking up but what it is is very hard to explain. In reality there can also be said to be no waking up because the Self was never truly deluded. It's probably best passed over in silence. Very paradoxical when put into words.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying your view is impossible within a Christian framework. That it is explicitly ruled out by the Scriptures, etc.. I believe my view is also possible within the Christian tradition though.

 

[mark kennedy]

I responded to precisely this question, but you never acknowledged it (post 48). Your views are defined by more than just God as Creator. You hold to a particular set of historical facts in addition to that truth. I contend that those facts are false.

No, what you acknowledge was that God is the primary first cause, I asked you specifically when special creation is warranted with regards to living systems. I was very specific and post 48 is a generality and you know it. The historical 'facts' are those explicitly prophesied (proclaimed) in the opening pages of Scripture. These 'facts' are confirmed in the New Testament so now we have two sets of questions asking the same thing, what 'facts' are you referring to as doctrines and at what level of life's origins and development does God become the instrumental cause.

In orthodox Darwinism the answer is always never.

From Scripture, I conclude only general creation, and creation ex nihilo. Beyond that, I'm fairly Thomistic.

So would you agree that God created...:

man from the slime of the earth, and a woman from out of man. (St. Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica question 92)​

As I said, God created everything. All matter and spirit that makes up me, all that makes up you, all that makes up the Earth and the Sun, and the stars, and the whole universe, and possibly the multiverse, it was all made by Him. As to its formation and structure, I think that it is likely that He did it entirely through His second causes.

I think we have established that we agree on God as primary first cause. Now the 'facts' of creation remain undefined, particularly with regards to what living systems God created and commanded to multiply according to their kinds.

Kingdom, Phylum, Genus, etc. -- it was all done by Him. The whole kit and caboodle. It seems likely to me that He performed (and is performing) all formation through secondary causes.

So creation is not 'miraculous interposition', it's a natural law in motion?

Oh, snap! That's a thread unto itself! In fact, Moses _is_ describing natural processes. They are precisely the natural processes that were believed to have formed the world in his day. This is one of the reasons I find the ancient literal interpretations of Genesis so much more spiritually satisfying than the modern ones. Back then, people were interested in the theology of the creation narrative.

Moses gives us a good many specifics with regards to the origin of birds, beasts of the field and man (even naming the first two humans). Now if Moses was strictly focusing of theology he spent a great deal of time focused on the natural world.

I'd hope so. I hope that you aren't one of those people that thinks there are elements of the formation of the world in which God is not present, upholding them and giving them substance by His Word.

Dude, I'm a young earth creationist, how could I be 'one of those people'? God as Creator makes God transcendent with creation while being separate from the created universe. Don't you hate those kind of theological paradoxes? I mean, 'God is transcendent and utterly independent at the same time, kind of a head trip.

 

[mark kennedy]

And we cannot conclude any special (i.e. non-natural) creation scientifically at all. Science cannot make that kind of determination.

That is exactly what I am calling the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. That being an axiom in the epistemology of science would make it mutually exclusive with the resurrection, the incarnation, the ascension, the new birth and the return of Christ in power and glory.

If science cannot determine whether God is the instrumental cause of Eve being created from Adam's rib then how could science possibly exclude, 'miraculous interposition'? The Scriptures are clear that Adam was created and without ancestors and since scientific truth can never contradict the truth of Scripture then there is a real problem determining cause and effect in origins theology.

This problem is far more serious then you may have been led to believe.

 

[mark kennedy]

Psalms 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

This verse clearly says that God made you in the womb, yet you have chosen to reject the clear teaching of the bible to suite your naturalistic assumptions. The secular view of how babies are made is that there is a sperm and egg, and then the cells divide etc. No need for a god of any kind here and you've bought into it. If you can't take God's word for it on this issue and reject man's science then how can you trust the rest of the bible?

There is a big difference between Adam being created from dust and David praising God for creating his 'inmost being'. There are some aspects of this Psalm that are different from an historical narrative like Genesis 1, 2. You are not comparing apples with apples here but I suspect you are just making a point.

As I'm sure you can tell it's a rhetorical analogy, but at the same time I do hope you can try to explain it because that will help you understand my view. The way that my analogy unnecessarily divides natural events from God's will is the same kind of divide you seem to be making about creation.

David was destined to be king before he was born, did you know that? There is more to this then a rhetorical analogy but yea, there are two different things going on in Psalm 139:13. God did call certain prophets from the womb, Ezekiel and John the Baptist comes to mind.

I see no real obstacle here but it's interesting that you are attempting to apply your interpretation to other passages. Now try this, what about miracles as definitive events in redemptive history. Does science prove itself helpful in this regards or should it just butt out and mind it's own business? I'm not trying to be factious, that's a serious question.

Do you think that God is incapable of doing this?

I think the elements and living systems are incapable of doing this. That is to say that there is no directly observed or demonstrated process by which this can be accomplished. An old earth chronology seems to give them the time but by what means? That is the question.

You don't lose TEs after the first verse. What do you think the rest of the verses mean to us? I'm really serious about this question, how do you think TEs interpret the rest of the creation story?

I don't even know what the vast majority of them believe about the New Testament. They invariably come against a creationist view not realizing that Creationism is a New Testament doctrine. What I am getting from Theistic Evolutionists is that Genesis 1 and 2 are just elaborate analogies. That is simply not the New Testament doctrine of creation nor is it the original intent of Moses by all accounts.

I have no real problem with a local flood BTW, a lot of good solid evangelicals hold to it. Don't really have a problem with a day/age approach, it's a little compromising and I disagree but it causes me no serious concerns. What I have real doctrinal issues with is Paul's teaching regarding Adam and the other passages that address creation being distorted by trying to dismiss them as analogies.

This is dangerous. When you add to the a divisive and contentious debate climate you have a formula for heresy not sound doctrine. Now I'm not trying to read you a Theistic Evolution indictment. I'm trying to tell you that there is a worldly philosophy that is as poisonous for theistic reasoning as it is for Biblical literalists like myself.

To answer your question, I think that God created each one of us as the bible says He did. I think that God used natural processes to do it too. This means that God also created each species, they were all a part of His plan, though His plan didn't necessitate poofing them into existence. He was able to set up mechanism to bring them about.

Adam was poofed into existence as was Christ, it's called a miracle and Christ was a new creation just like Adam. Now whatever preexisting material might have been involved with both God is not called Creator because he created natural law and all matter and then let it run it's course over billions of years. That is a very important 'poof', we embrace a supernatural faith, there is no escaping that essential fact. God is not just Creator in principle, God acted in time and space, that's not my interpretation, that's Gospel.

I believe in a God that made a universe that works. I'm similar to deists in the sense that God kick started the big bang and let it go. But not in the sense that He is sitting back to see what happens, He knows what will happen with it because it's a part of His plan. What makes theism true as opposed to deism is that God actually gets involved in our lives. We are the pinnacle of His creation (which is a clear message of the creation account).

I get that and you certainly don't need my approval to hold that view. Just understand, God being involved in our lives and human affairs remains a core doctrine in Christian theism, starting with creation.

So when you ask what God's role is my answer is that God made every species and every individual as well and He remains active in our daily lives. If you are only interested in when God needed to use supernatural means to create then my answer is the beginning of the universe and time.

Then I did lose you after the first verse, just curious where you actually accept divine intervention.

I could go on but I think I'll leave it at that for now to see what you have to say.

Cheers,

Phil

It's been an interesting exchange, sure hope I have time to pursue it further.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

It would come down to what we mean by "real". I see contingent "reality" as merely a superimposition on Absolute reality. Ultimately it's as illusory as the snake we see when we look at a coiled up piece of rope in the dark. Snake is a superimposition upon the reality - rope.

To me that suggests the created world is a mass hallucination. I have a great deal of difficulty associating God with such a creation.

This world experience has no reality apart from God. Ultimately I don't think the word "contingent" and "reality" go too well together at all.. Contingency shows a lack of being or reality. This isn't just Hindu thought but a common idea in Western / Greek philosophy, from Parmenides to Plotinus.

Granted, but there is little of Greek philosophy in Hebrew thought and therefore little of Greek philosophy in the teaching of Jesus or any part of the bible.

The early church was heavily swayed by Greek philosophy and in my opinion too much so. Biblically, Greek philosophy has no more to commend itself than Hindu philosophy does. I think we need to critique (not necessarily reject) both from other perspectives--especially those of the biblical prophets and apostles.

Does creation have being in and of itself apart from God? Could it continue on without him?

To the first question I would answer "yes". A degree of autonomy is God's gift to creation. It is what makes creation a genuine creation--not a hallucination or dream or illusion of any sort. To the second question, I would answer "no". The inability of any created thing to continue on without the sustaining power of God's providence is what makes it contingent.

 

[gluadys]

If science cannot determine whether God is the instrumental cause of Eve being created from Adam's rib then how could science possibly exclude, 'miraculous interposition'?

It can't. And it doesn't.


The point, however, is that science can't affirm any such miraculous interposition either. It can't make miraculous interposition part of science because there is no way to provide scientific evidence that any event is caused by miraculous interposition.

 

[Willtor]

No, what you acknowledge was that God is the primary first cause, I asked you specifically when special creation is warranted with regards to living systems. I was very specific and post 48 is a generality and you know it. The historical 'facts' are those explicitly prophesied (proclaimed) in the opening pages of Scripture. These 'facts' are confirmed in the New Testament so now we have two sets of questions asking the same thing, what 'facts' are you referring to as doctrines and at what level of life's origins and development does God become the instrumental cause.

In orthodox Darwinism the answer is always never.

Genesis doesn't say that there was special creation with respect to living systems. Even if you take it literally, God commands that the Earth should bring forth all living things. The only living thing that is singled out for that distinction is humanity, in the second creation account.

That said, the idea that God created all of the creatures ex nihilo doesn't bother me. If it looked like it were so, I would believe it. Evolution is a red herring because I could take it or leave it and it doesn't influence my reading of Genesis. When I say I think it is likely that God formed the world through secondary causes, I say so because I see it as related to the doctrine of the invisibility of God insofar as reason can properly infer the structure of natural history.

So would you agree that God created...:

man from the slime of the earth, and a woman from out of man. (St. Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica question 92)​

No. There were many things about which St. Thomas was mistaken. Nevertheless, I find his discussions of causation a significant advancement in theology (among his many positive developments).

I think we have established that we agree on God as primary first cause. Now the 'facts' of creation remain undefined, particularly with regards to what living systems God created and commanded to multiply according to their kinds.

As I say, even in a literal reading, humanity is singled out (among plants and animals) for special formation (not even creation) in Genesis. Everything else was a product of the Earth.

So creation is not 'miraculous interposition', it's a natural law in motion?

No. Creation is ex nihilo. It is prior to, and itself the source of, natural law. I think it is likely that all formation (after creation) occurs through natural law.

Moses gives us a good many specifics with regards to the origin of birds, beasts of the field and man (even naming the first two humans). Now if Moses was strictly focusing of theology he spent a great deal of time focused on the natural world.

Indeed! In particular, he spends quite a lot of time describing the relationship of God to the natural world. And his description makes an intriguing twist on the conventional thought regarding that relationship.

Dude, I'm a young earth creationist, how could I be 'one of those people'? God as Creator makes God transcendent with creation while being separate from the created universe. Don't you hate those kind of theological paradoxes? I mean, 'God is transcendent and utterly independent at the same time, kind of a head trip.

I apologize. In discussions with some creationists, I have found them unwilling to accept that God is present in natural processes. Some believe that God cannot be the primary cause underlying evolution, for example. Or, for a less loaded example, they have trouble believing that God really makes the sun rise or the rain fall in the general case (as in Matt. 5:45).

Also, as an aside, do you mean "immanent" when you say "transcendent"? Not that God is not transcendent, but immanent looks like it fits your context.

 

[Greg1234]

And we cannot conclude any special (i.e. non-natural) creation scientifically at all. Science cannot make that kind of determination.

Your problem lies in bloating the insufficient analytical capabilities of man to which the creative process must be made subservient. It's the idea that the process of creation must be understood from a purely material standpoint because methodological naturalism can only investigate the material.

This is in turn, is the result of a prior elevation of physical science to the status of reality's only harbinger. So for the creative process to be real, in your mind, God must have made it completely through physical science.


No effort is geared towards the understanding of Creationism itself. It's either "poof" or the bombastic assertions in materialistic doctrine. The only understanding of Creationism, in your mind, the only way to get past "poof", in your train of thought, is to strip from the creative process all supernatural influences whereby any understanding of the creation must be influenced by purely naturalistic causes.

However, this is not in the duty of proper science and investigation but more or less the refusal to acknowledge the possession of inadequate faculties of perception. Creationism itself is a drawn out and complex process. No more of a "poof" than a voice on the radio (resulting from radio waves) being due to "poof." Of course, my inability to venture to the radio station or to understand the principle of radio does not justify the miniaturization the radio's resting table at hand and mentally forcing it into the radio as a viable cause.

The insufficiency of materialistic processes is an ode to the fact of a supernatural creation. It doesn't matter how much religion is trampled upon by materialism, no matter how much it is relegated as a vestige of the beast's mind, it changes nothing.

You have materialists and Christian Darwinists today simply asking for the creation of man to be replaced by materialism's random formation. Never has this been entertained before. Materialism today however, claims for itself the the edge of influential positions.

My message to you, a Christian Darwinist, is that a contortion in fear of materialism will never be canonized as a Christian staple. Bring the data instead. To the "purebred" Darwinists, it remains a fact, that no experiment has ever refuted Creationism.

 

[Greg1234]

Genesis doesn't say that there was special creation with respect to living systems. Even if you take it literally, God commands that the Earth should bring forth all living things. The only living thing that is singled out for that distinction is humanity, in the second creation account.

The article posted by the materialist is severely lacking. For one, Gen 1 is regarded as a spiritual creation. There is the creation of the material man and other animals in Gen 2. The command is also supplemented in Gen 1:25. When looking at the New Testament we also find the seeds of creation and the fact the all flesh is not the same (partially drawing their distinction from a spiritual basis). In the experimentation of physical data we find the same thing. Adaptation with limits.

 

[Assyrian]

Genesis doesn't say that there was special creation with respect to living systems. Even if you take it literally, God commands that the Earth should bring forth all living things. The only living thing that is singled out for that distinction is humanity, in the second creation account.
....
As I say, even in a literal reading, humanity is singled out (among plants and animals) for special formation (not even creation) in Genesis. Everything else was a product of the Earth.

If I can throw a spanner among the pigeons here, Genesis 2 says God formed all the animals and birds form dust too.
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground...
Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air...
The differences between the two descriptions are the reference to dust in making man, but that is what the ground the animals were made of would have been composed of too, and the reference to having breath from God. But if on a biological level, God forming the animals from form ground is the same as God commanding the earth to produce the animals, in other words it is open to God using natural processes, then God forming man from the dust of the ground can be natural too, it is only our spirit that somehow has something uniquely divine.

 

[Greg1234]

(one of which we call evolution)

The role for adaptation in creation is similar to the role of a light switch in a car.

 

[mark kennedy]

Genesis doesn't say that there was special creation with respect to living systems. Even if you take it literally, God commands that the Earth should bring forth all living things. The only living thing that is singled out for that distinction is humanity, in the second creation account.

Genesis explicitly describes the special creation of plants, birds of the air, fish of the sea and beasts of the field. Yes Wiltor it does say that there was special creation in no uncertain terms.

That said, the idea that God created all of the creatures ex nihilo doesn't bother me. If it looked like it were so, I would believe it. Evolution is a red herring because I could take it or leave it and it doesn't influence my reading of Genesis. When I say I think it is likely that God formed the world through secondary causes, I say so because I see it as related to the doctrine of the invisibility of God insofar as reason can properly infer the structure of natural history.

Evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time, that happens so yea, it's a red herring. As far as a comprehensive reading of the text it actually presents very few interpretive challenges. In three days God prepares the earth to be inhabited, then in three successive, literal days God creates every living system, fully formed and their offspring start to evolve from there.

My inference into natural history is that there is no need to always assume naturalistic causes.

The article posted by the materialist is severely lacking. For one, Gen 1 is regarded as a spiritual creation. There is the creation of the material man and other animals in Gen 2. The command is also supplemented in Gen 1:25. When looking at the New Testament we also find the seeds of creation and the fact the all flesh is not the same (partially drawing their distinction from a spiritual basis). In the experimentation of physical data we find the same thing. Adaptation with limits.

What he said..

No. There were many things about which St. Thomas was mistaken. Nevertheless, I find his discussions of causation a significant advancement in theology (among his many positive developments).

Thomas Aquinas took Genesis quite literally, that's my point. The Pauline doctrine of original sin was emphasized strongly by him as it was by all the Early Church Fathers before him. Not one of them took Adam figuratively and those who do depart from traditional Christian theism and the clear meaning of the text.

As I say, even in a literal reading, humanity is singled out (among plants and animals) for special formation (not even creation) in Genesis. Everything else was a product of the Earth.

Adam was specially created, he was formed from the dust of the earth, some would say slime. The general description of the rest of creation does say from the earth but there is no hint of naturalistic processes over countless eons.

No. Creation is ex nihilo. It is prior to, and itself the source of, natural law. I think it is likely that all formation (after creation) occurs through natural law.

Not according to the clear testimony in the Genesis narrative.

Indeed! In particular, he spends quite a lot of time describing the relationship of God to the natural world. And his description makes an intriguing twist on the conventional thought regarding that relationship.

It's a departure from the pagan concept that the elementals proceeded the gods and gave rise to them.

I apologize. In discussions with some creationists, I have found them unwilling to accept that God is present in natural processes. Some believe that God cannot be the primary cause underlying evolution, for example. Or, for a less loaded example, they have trouble believing that God really makes the sun rise or the rain fall in the general case (as in Matt. 5:45).

No need to apologize, it's a common misconception.

Also, as an aside, do you mean "immanent" when you say "transcendent"? Not that God is not transcendent, but immanent looks like it fits your context.

I wouldn't use 'immanent', I have no idea what that would mean in that context. Transcendence is a concept Aristotle defines early in his book Metaphysics, he describes metaphysics as a search for the substantive principle that transcends all of reality. For the Darwinian it's natural law but for me it's the reflection of and interaction with the glory of God in nature. I could elaborate at length but I don't want to confuse the issue after making so much progress.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

The role for adaptation in creation is similar to the role of a light switch in a car.

That's actually a pretty apt description. One of the reasons I continue to endure these deeply contentious debates is I sometimes learn things about how these adaptive mechanisms work. Apparently there are genes that can be turned on and off and gene expression can change due to external conditions. I'm not sure how that translates into an inheritable trait but this sort of thing is piecemeal.

 

[gluadys]

Your problem lies in bloating the insufficient analytical capabilities of man to which the creative process must be made subservient. It's the idea that the process of creation must be understood from a purely material standpoint because methodological naturalism can only investigate the material.

You have it backwards about. It is because methodological naturalism can only investigate matter/energy that science can only provide a material understanding of the world.

That doesn't allow for the conclusion that the world is to be understood only materially.

 

[mark kennedy]

You have it backwards about. It is because methodological naturalism can only investigate matter/energy that science can only provide a material understanding of the world.

That doesn't allow for the conclusion that the world is to be understood only materially.

Backwards? It sounds like you two are in perfect agreement, don't see how this statement is a correction.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Granted, but there is little of Greek philosophy in Hebrew thought and therefore little of Greek philosophy in the teaching of Jesus or any part of the bible

There is little Greek philosophy in the thought of some Hebrews and a great amount of it in the thought of other Hebrews. Have you read the Wisdom of Solomon? How about the writings of Philo? You will find a good deal of Platonic thought there. Something doesn't have to be common in Hebrew thought for it to be true either. God revealed things to non-Hebrews as well.

 

[Willtor]

Genesis explicitly describes the special creation of plants, birds of the air, fish of the sea and beasts of the field. Yes Wiltor it does say that there was special creation in no uncertain terms.

I'm sorry, that just isn't so. Genesis 1:11:

"Then God said, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.’ And it was so."

The Earth made these things. Please explain why it would say that both God and the Earth were the cause if it meant that only God were the cause, and not the Earth.

Evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time, that happens so yea, it's a red herring. As far as a comprehensive reading of the text it actually presents very few interpretive challenges. In three days God prepares the earth to be inhabited, then in three successive, literal days God creates every living system, fully formed and their offspring start to evolve from there.

My inference into natural history is that there is no need to always assume naturalistic causes.

I'm not sure any of us assume naturalistic causes, in this forum. Natural causes, perhaps, but not naturalistic.

What he said..

I didn't reference an article, so I didn't understand what he said with respect to what I said.

Thomas Aquinas took Genesis quite literally, that's my point. The Pauline doctrine of original sin was emphasized strongly by him as it was by all the Early Church Fathers before him. Not one of them took Adam figuratively and those who do depart from traditional Christian theism and the clear meaning of the text.

St. Thomas took creation literally in some ways that you wouldn't like, and also non-literally in some ways that you wouldn't like... or so I suppose. Will you be held to his interpretation of Genesis for the purposes of this discussion?

Re: Adam -- Indeed. What else could have happened but that there was a first couple? What other possibilities were known to them? That doesn't mean that the early Church universally regarded the account as an historically factual one.

Adam was specially created, he was formed from the dust of the earth, some would say slime. The general description of the rest of creation does say from the earth but there is no hint of naturalistic processes over countless eons.

No, indeed. As to naturalistic processes, we are in full agreement. Natural processes, on the other hand, are explicitly referenced. Over countless aeons, again, you are correct that there is no hint.

Not according to the clear testimony in the Genesis narrative.

No, it isn't obvious from Genesis alone. But it gives a subtle wink and nod to the self-workings of the world, as I've cited.

It's a departure from the pagan concept that the elementals proceeded the gods and gave rise to them.

Among other things.

No need to apologize, it's a common misconception.

I wouldn't use 'immanent', I have no idea what that would mean in that context. Transcendence is a concept Aristotle defines early in his book Metaphysics, he describes metaphysics as a search for the substantive principle that transcends all of reality. For the Darwinian it's natural law but for me it's the reflection of and interaction with the glory of God in nature. I could elaborate at length but I don't want to confuse the issue after making so much progress.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I see. By Darwinian, do you mean naturalist?

 

[gluadys]

Backwards? It sounds like you two are in perfect agreement, don't see how this statement is a correction.

Agreement? Not at all.

As I understand Greg's position, and yours, science only provides material explanations because scientists have decided a priori that only material explanations are valid.

I disagree entirely with that. As I see it, (and any scientist who is a theist) science only provides material explanations, because that is all it is capable of providing. Not at all because they are the only valid or acceptable or possible explanations.

The first view is materialistic; the second is not.