Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism

[gluadys]

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.

Both late in Jewish philosophy and neither recognized by Jews as part of God's revelation.

Wisdom did make it into the Septuagint and from there into Catholic/Orthodox Christian canons. But anything in the canon has to be viewed in light of the rest of the canon.

Nor do I know of anything in Wisdom or Philo (though I am much less conversant with his writings) that depicts creation as God's dream. Much was borrowed from Greek thought during the hey-day of Hellenism, but not, so far as I know, the Greek notions of the nature of the cosmos, which did not include a concept of creation.

 

[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.

Actually it's because 19th century Naturalism and the Methodology for establishing cause and effect relationships in nature are two different things. What you are calling 'methodological naturalism presupposes the cause and rejects God and miracles prior to even examining the phenomenon.

Methodology for handling unknown phenomena in nature and reaching towards explanations for them.:

Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.​

(Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Newton)

There is no logical or rational reason why God cannot be a cause of a phenomenon like creation unless your an atheistic materialist.

 

[mark kennedy]

Agreement? Not at all.

An interesting admission.

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.

Science can only provide the tools, physical and mental for measuring and reproducing the phenomenon. It is never permissible to presuppose the cause of the phenomenon to be materialistic unless your presuppose that God is either nonexistent or uninvolved. You are talking about a materialistic philosophy that comes before the empirical evidence, not as a conclusion from it.

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.

So should the scientist butt out when God performs a miracle in time and space? What if that act was creation? Where does the scientist get off attributing to nature what the Scriptures attribute to God?

The first view is materialistic; the second is not.

I'll agree that you are talking about two different things but then again, evolutionists always are.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

God commanded it, before God acted in time and space there was no life.

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

Yes you do and I am sure.

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

He was clear enough, really don't see any reason for the confusion.

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?

Like all Protestants I will agree with his interpretation when he agrees with the clear testimony of Scripture. Will you agree that St. Thomas believed Adam and Eve to be our first parents, specially created and the perpetrators of original sin?

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.

• But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....(ST. IRENAEUS c. 180 AD)
• And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM (TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)
• THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]. (Homilies on Jeremias 8:1)

That is the short list, the link leads to numerous others and I have yet to find anyone denying this from Church history in a non-heretical tradition.

Early Church Fathers on Original Sin

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.

They are referenced at their point of origin, they are never credited with the emergence or development of life. God spoke and it was so, that is the clear testimony of Scripture.

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 gives explicit details on the order of creation and the ordinal associated with 'Yom', the Hebrew word for day, always means a 24 hour day. It is obvious from Genesis alone and seamlessly dovetails with the clear testimony and totality of Scripture.

I see. By Darwinian, do you mean naturalist?

By Darwinism I mean the a priori assumption of universal common decent by exclusively naturalistic causes.

 

[Greg1234]

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.

And once again you leave out Gen 1:25. The same reason why God said "Let there be light." Or "Let the surrounding areas produce light." "And it was so." "Let there be lights and God made the two lights." It is a command issued indicating mental activity as the casual agent acting upon the substance to be used to produce commanded effect. It has nothing to do with materialism. Further, the implementation of materialism's tenet is to act in opposition of what is tested and shown to be factual.

 

[Greg1234]

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.

It goes back all the way to Mc Clintock but it was recently revived by Shapiro. Organisms clearly exhibit the ability to make minor adjustments to their own genome in response to environmental changes. A new paper came out the other day which once again documents that phenomenon and a similar comparison was made in a blog,

Darwin's God: Flax: More Falsifications of Evolution and the Real Warfare Thesis

Swift and precise adaptation to environmental shifts, such as observed in flax, is not evolution. Instead of evolution’s long, slow arduous process of random mutations that eventually, somehow against all odds, happen to find a helpful change, what biology reveals is instantaneous adjustment. Like shifting gears when you encounter a hill, biology adjusts designs in real-time.

​

 

[Willtor]

God commanded it, before God acted in time and space there was no life.

By way of a second cause. That is what the creation narrative says. Do you contend that the account is using some figure of speech when it says this?

Yes you do and I am sure.

I hope I know what I think better than you know what I think. I surmise that you are sure, not because you have good reason to be sure, but because if you admitted the possibility that I am speaking the truth about my beliefs, your case would be totally undermined. You need me to hold the view you assign to me.

He was clear enough, really don't see any reason for the confusion.

Okay. At any rate, not having read the article in question, I can't respond, so I'll let my point stand.

Like all Protestants I will agree with his interpretation when he agrees with the clear testimony of Scripture. Will you agree that St. Thomas believed Adam and Eve to be our first parents, specially created and the perpetrators of original sin?

Yes, of course. I suspect that basically everyone prior to the 19th century believed that Adam and Eve were our first parents (though, some believed those names were back-applied to our first parents).

• But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....(ST. IRENAEUS c. 180 AD)
• And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM (TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)
• THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]. (Homilies on Jeremias 8:1)

That is the short list, the link leads to numerous others and I have yet to find anyone denying this from Church history in a non-heretical tradition.

Early Church Fathers on Original Sin

I don't think St. Athanasius is from an heretical tradition. Against the Gentiles, Book I, Chapter III:

1. Thus then, as we have said, the Creator fashioned the race of men, and thus meant it to remain. But men, making light of better things, and holding back from apprehending them, began to seek in preference things nearer to themselves. 2. But nearer to themselves were the body and its senses; so that while removing their mind from the things perceived by thought, they began to regard themselves; and so doing, and holding to the body and the other things of sense, and deceived as it were in their own surroundings, they fell into lust of themselves, preferring what was their own to the contemplation of what belonged to God. Having then made themselves at home in these things, and not being willing to leave what was so near to them, they entangled their soul with bodily pleasures, vexed and turbid with all kind of lusts, while they wholly forgot the power they originally had from God. 3. But the truth of this one may see from the man who was first made, according to what the holy Scriptures tell us of him. For he also, as long as he kept his mind to God, and the contemplation of God, turned away from the contemplation of the body. But when, by counsel of the serpent, he departed from the consideration of God, and began to regard himself, then they not only fell to bodily lust, but knew that they were naked, and knowing, were ashamed. But they knew that they were naked, not so much of clothing as that they were become stripped of the contemplation of divine things, and had transferred their understanding to the contraries. For having departed from the consideration of the one and the true, namely, God, and from desire of Him, they had thenceforward embarked in divers lusts and in those of the several bodily senses. 4. Next, as is apt to happen, having formed a desire for each and sundry, they began to be habituated to these desires, so that they were even afraid to leave them: whence the soul became subject to cowardice and alarms, and pleasures and thoughts of mortality. For not being willing to leave her lusts, she fears death and her separation from the body. But again, from lusting, and not meeting with gratification, she learned to commit murder and wrong. We are then led naturally to shew, as best we can, how she does this.

Note the lack of mention of trees or fruit with respect to the Fall. In its place, there is extensive discussion of the consideration of God vs. the considerations of the flesh... a figurative tree, as it were. If this is a literal interpretation of Genesis, then I contend that I have a literal interpretation of Genesis. Merely, I do not hold _your_ literal interpretation of Genesis.

They are referenced at their point of origin, they are never credited with the emergence or development of life. God spoke and it was so, that is the clear testimony of Scripture.

Oh, my. I contend that, prior to the 19th century, the natural literal interpretation of Genesis was always understood to attribute precisely that work to the Earth because of the clear testimony of Scripture (at least, those who took the creation account literally). Also, since God never commanded it to stop bringing forth life, they believed that it continued to do so long after the initial six days of creation.

It gives explicit details on the order of creation and the ordinal associated with 'Yom', the Hebrew word for day, always means a 24 hour day. It is obvious from Genesis alone and seamlessly dovetails with the clear testimony and totality of Scripture.

Look, you're jumping through too many topics. I don't want to talk about Yom -- unless you are willing to concede that it was the Earth that made life in the narrative.

By Darwinism I mean the a priori assumption of universal common decent by exclusively naturalistic causes.

Ah, okay. Then, yeah, I'm not a proponent of Darwinism, either. So I think we're just in violent agreement.

 

[Willtor]

And once again you leave out Gen 1:25. The same reason why God said "Let there be light." Or "Let the surrounding areas produce light." "And it was so." "Let there be lights and God made the two lights." It is a command issued indicating mental activity as the casual agent acting upon the substance to be used to produce commanded effect. It has nothing to do with materialism. Further, the implementation of materialism's tenet is to act in opposition of what is tested and shown to be factual.

Oh, I get it. You're calling me the materialist.

Dude, don't be like that. That's not cool.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Both late in Jewish philosophy and neither recognized by Jews as part of God's revelation.

That would depend on which Jews you are talking about at lest when it comes to the Wisdom of Solomon. As you noted, the Jews of Alexandria who translated the Septuagint seemed to like it. The fact that most Jews currently don't accept it as part of their Scripture doesn't imply that there were not Jews in the past who did. The Jewish Scriptures at that time were not so set in stone. That was a later development. The Essense had their own collection that included Enochian literature. The Jews of Alexandria had theirs. etc..

In WOS Wisdom is the creative power of God. A pure emanation of his glory. She is the Spirit that is "intelligent". The very name "wisdom" relates to the world of consciousness and thought. It is she that gives men "unerring knowledge of what exists" [Wis 7:15-22]. As an "emanation" she is non-dual with God.

“For in Her there is a Spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, mobile, clear, unpolluted, distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen, irresistible, beneficent, humane, steadfast, sure, free from anxiety, all-powerful, overseeing all and penetrating through all spirits that are intelligent and pure and most subtle.

For Wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of Her pureness She pervades and penetrates all things. For She is a Breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into Her. For She is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of His goodness.

Though She is but one, She can do all things, and while remaining in Herself, She renews all things; in every generation She passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God and prophets; for God loves nothing so much as the man who lives with Wisdom. For She is more beautiful than the sun, and excels every constellation of the stars.

Compared with the light She is found to be superior, for it is succeeded by the night, but against Wisdom evil does not prevail.”

I don't limit myself to things that modern Jews consider canonical though. I might take it into consideration but truth is to be found outside all sectarians bounds. I especially wouldn't limit myself to a religion I don't even practice - Judaism.

 

[philadiddle]

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.

Yes, I'm only trying to make a point. Analogies always break down at some point and are never exactly the same, it's the similarities that I was focusing on.

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.

Miracles defy the natural order, so science would state that any miracle isn't possible given the laws of the universe. If there is a god who can override those laws then science would not be able to detect it so yes, science would have to butt out.

Having said that, science can detect if something that is believed to have taken place actually has a natural explanation. For example, Jesus turned water into wine and I accept that miracle even though it defies the laws of the universe that we have discovered through science. However, science can still investigate those things. If it turns out that a butler gives testimony of actually going and buying the wine, and there is a receipt from the store, and there are empty wine bottles to match it, then it would be sciences place to say that the wine was actually purchased at the store and no miracle took place. It may even be possible for science to rule out naturalistic explanations and give credence to the miracle.

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.

The theory of evolution explains the means, I'm sure it's been explained to you once or twice before on this forum so I won't do that now.

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.

If that's all you are getting from TEs then you really need to take more time to listen when you discuss things here. It would probably do you well to start a thread and ask questions to TEs about their beliefs, without trying to argue with them, just to understand them.

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.

I'm curious about your take on Genesis as well. For example, in Genesis 3:15 when God is handing out punishments he tell the serpent that he will bruise our heals and we will bruise his head (the verb varies in different translations). What does that mean to you?

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.

The gospel does not rest on whether or not Adam was poofed into existence. That is a miracle that science can look at to see if there is evidence for and against it. Genetics has spoken very loudly in favor of common descent (HERVs, pseudogenes, phylogenetic trees based on the unnecessary differences in proteins etc). At this point though I think the science could be put on hold for another thread, there is already lots to talk about.

 

[gluadys]

In WOS Wisdom is the creative power of God. A pure emanation of his glory. She is the Spirit that is "intelligent". The very name "wisdom" relates to the world of consciousness and thought. It is she that gives men "unerring knowledge of what exists" [Wis 7:15-22]. As an "emanation" she is non-dual with God.

Yes, and that is why the early church identified Wisdom with Christ. Like Wisdom, Christ is a pure emanation of God as described in the epistle to the Hebrews: "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being,..." Hebrews 1:3a NIV

or as stated in the Nicene Creed, he is "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not created..."


And this is exactly what creation is not. Creation IS created.

Christ is depicted as the Word through whom creation came into being; as the one by whose power creation is sustained in being, in whom all things consist: but not as the creation itself. And Wisdom is likewise depicted in Proverbs and other Jewish Wisdom literature, as an active agent in the making of creation.


This is one of the crucial distinctions between Greek and Hebrew philosophy; in Greek philosophy, it is not just Wisdom or the Logos which is an emanation of God, but the whole natural world. The world itself is non-dual with God. This is also consistent with Hindu thought. Nothing is created because everything is literally God and from God and folds back into being God.


But the classic Judaeo-Christian view, the one that did get enshrined in the canonical literature, is that the world of nature is made by God; it is not an extension of or emanation of God's own being. In creating, God gave being to that which is not God.

I don't limit myself to things that modern Jews consider canonical though. I might take it into consideration but truth is to be found outside all sectarians bounds. I especially wouldn't limit myself to a religion I don't even practice - Judaism.

On this point though, Christianity upholds the same faith in creation as Judaism. There is no confusion of Creator with creation.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, I'm only trying to make a point. Analogies always break down at some point and are never exactly the same, it's the similarities that I was focusing on.

Genesis is not an analogy, you don't provide genealogies for an analogy. Adam appears at the top of the one in Genesis and the one in Luke. You should know, Genesis 1 cannot be reduced to an analogy, it would do irreparable damage to the hermeneutics and a great disservice to the literary style. It's an historical narrative, has always been understood as such, always will be.

Miracles defy the natural order, so science would state that any miracle isn't possible given the laws of the universe. If there is a god who can override those laws then science would not be able to detect it so yes, science would have to butt out.

Which is exactly why conjecture and speculation regarding the origin of life is way out of bounds for secular scientists. The fact is that for God to be rejected as a cause isn't science, it's atheism. That's why Darwinism is so dangerous, the universal acid that eats through everything, especially theistic reasoning. You guys think I'm mad at you or that I'm judging you. The truth is that I'm on your side, when they are done with creationists they will come after you.

Having said that, science can detect if something that is believed to have taken place actually has a natural explanation. For example, Jesus turned water into wine and I accept that miracle even though it defies the laws of the universe that we have discovered through science. However, science can still investigate those things. If it turns out that a butler gives testimony of actually going and buying the wine, and there is a receipt from the store, and there are empty wine bottles to match it, then it would be sciences place to say that the wine was actually purchased at the store and no miracle took place. It may even be possible for science to rule out naturalistic explanations and give credence to the miracle.

The role of science in historical events does not confirm or deny the event, it measures the quality of the evidence. Here is a criteria that might be of interest to you and bear in mind, it does not matter in the slightest whether the event is a miracle or not:

Old Testament Genuine Until Proven to be Corrupted or Falsified.

Applying the Fundamental Rules of Evidence:

Such are the brief histories of men, whose narratives we are to examine and compare; conducting the examination and weighing the testimony by the same rules and principles which govern our tribunals of justice in similar cases. These tribunals are in such cases governed by the following fundamental rule:

Rule One: Sufficient Probability That Their Testimony is True
Establishing Truth by Competent and Satisfactory Evidence
Tests for Credibility:

• Their Honesty,
• Their Ability,
• Number and Consistency of Their Testimony,
• Conformity of Their Testimony with Experience,
• Coincidence of Their Testimony with Collateral and Contemporaneous Facts and Circumstances,
• Acquiring the Value and Force of Demonstrations,

(Testimony of the Evangelists, Greenleaf)​

You all speak of evolution as if it had a monolithic meaning, completely understood and agreed to by all. That is not the truth, the truth is that the genuine article of science defines the phenomenon of evolution as alleles changing in populations over time, period. What we are talking about is natural history and the rules of evidence require that when there are eye witness accounts the inquiry necessarily goes to the credibility of the witnesses. Either God spoke to Moses or he didn't, leaving the reader with one of two choices, you either believe the message or you don't.

The theory of evolution explains the means, I'm sure it's been explained to you once or twice before on this forum so I won't do that now.

Evolution is not a means, evolution is a phenomenon that requires a cause and effect explanation. Natural selection is not a cause, it's an effect. These are two grossly misunderstood terms or do you have a definition of evolution I know nothing about? The change of alleles in populations over time speaks only of the alleles having been changed, not the means by which they changed. The means are molecular mechanisms, not pithy catch all phrases loaded with naturalistic assumptions.

Hope you are not taking this as a rebuke, creationists do this to, matter of fact they're bad about it.

If that's all you are getting from TEs then you really need to take more time to listen when you discuss things here. It would probably do you well to start a thread and ask questions to TEs about their beliefs, without trying to argue with them, just to understand them.

Unfortunately I do understand them and there is little doubt that what is at work here is philosophical, not theological or scientific. We are dealing with naturalistic assumptions that have been equivocated with science and evolutionary biology and it's not only wrong, it's absurd.

I'm curious about your take on Genesis as well. For example, in Genesis 3:15 when God is handing out punishments he tell the serpent that he will bruise our heals and we will bruise his head (the verb varies in different translations). What does that mean to you?

There is no 'seed of the woman', this is a predictive prophecy of the virgin birth. The euphemism used there is not unlike the one that speaks of the 'seed of Abraham', rather then seeds. I could elaborate but this is the first prophecy concerning Christ. You may or may not know, my original interest that led me into the origins debate was Apologetics and this line of interpretation is well established in Christian scholarship.

The gospel does not rest on whether or not Adam was poofed into existence. That is a miracle that science can look at to see if there is evidence for and against it.

The Gospel does rest on our being sinners and Paul makes it clear that the need for justification comes from the sin of Adam. This has been well established in the teachings of the early church fathers, the RCC, Orthodox traditions and virtually every Protestant tradition that predates Darwinism.

Genetics has spoken very loudly in favor of common descent (HERVs, pseudogenes, phylogenetic trees based on the unnecessary differences in proteins etc). At this point though I think the science could be put on hold for another thread, there is already lots to talk about.

Genetics has never been a discipline in science that relied on Darwinism, without evolution as natural history genetics would be unchanged.

"The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. (Human Genome, Nature 2001)​

The Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means comes before empirical evidence. It won't be understood until core terms like science and evolution are defined. then you can see that Darwinian evolution is a philosophical axiom that distorts the epistemology of science rather then being based on it.

I often ask this question to show this simple fact, perhaps you would care to address it. If homology arguments argue in favor of common descent do differences argue against it? The answer is always no or silence, what is your response?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[philadiddle]

Genesis is not an analogy, you don't provide genealogies for an analogy. Adam appears at the top of the one in Genesis and the one in Luke. You should know, Genesis 1 cannot be reduced to an analogy, it would do irreparable damage to the hermeneutics and a great disservice to the literary style.

I never said that Genesis was an analogy, I was talking about the analogy I used by saying that God knit you in your mother's womb.

It's an historical narrative, has always been understood as such, always will be.

Definitely not true. Read the works by the early church fathers.

Which is exactly why conjecture and speculation regarding the origin of life is way out of bounds for secular scientists.

I don't believe in our origins based on conjecture or speculation, not insulting your opponent and taking the time to understand them instead of ignoring years of conversations could go a long way for you.

The fact is that for God to be rejected as a cause isn't science, it's atheism. That's why Darwinism is so dangerous, the universal acid that eats through everything, especially theistic reasoning.

This is not an argument against my perspective, it's an argument against a strawman version of it that makes it seem evil.

Either God spoke to Moses or he didn't, leaving the reader with one of two choices, you either believe the message or you don't.

The repetition of your false dichotomy is disheartening. I've been trying to understand your point of view but you haven't taken any time to understand the TE point of view.

Evolution is not a means, evolution is a phenomenon that requires a cause and effect explanation. Natural selection is not a cause, it's an effect. These are two grossly misunderstood terms or do you have a definition of evolution I know nothing about? The change of alleles in populations over time speaks only of the alleles having been changed, not the means by which they changed. The means are molecular mechanisms, not pithy catch all phrases loaded with naturalistic assumptions.

Yes the frequency of alleles in a population changes over time, that is a fact. It changes by point mutations, insertions, deletions, duplication, horizontal gene transfer etc...all of which are facts, all of which have been observed to cause beneficial mutations.

Unfortunately I do understand them and there is little doubt that what is at work here is philosophical, not theological or scientific. We are dealing with naturalistic assumptions that have been equivocated with science and evolutionary biology and it's not only wrong, it's absurd.

Science uses methodological naturalism, which you seem to be confusing with philosophical materialism. Since this has been explained to you many time, I might have to start thinking that you are just ignoring people, which certainly makes sense of the attacks you seem to keep getting from other posters here.

There is no 'seed of the woman', this is a predictive prophecy of the virgin birth. The euphemism used there is not unlike the one that speaks of the 'seed of Abraham', rather then seeds. I could elaborate but this is the first prophecy concerning Christ. You may or may not know, my original interest that led me into the origins debate was Apologetics and this line of interpretation is well established in Christian scholarship.

I wasn't really asking about this specifically, I was asking about the snake bruising our heels and us bruising its head. What does that part mean to you?

I often ask this question to show this simple fact, perhaps you would care to address it. If homology arguments argue in favor of common descent do differences argue against it? The answer is always no or silence, what is your response?

Similarities are evidence for it, differences are evidence of further separation. The nested hierarchy that we find in nature is evidence of it, and it would also predict that there would be more differences the further apart two species are on the tree of life.



Atheists often attack the bible as unreliable science. They quote that the earth sits on pillars and point out that an all knowing God wouldn't have written that. As a Christian I try to point out that the pillars of the earth are part of an ancient cosmology, and that it only serves as a backdrop for the more important truths in those passages. It was something the human author understood and used to relay the message given by God. Then the atheist just tells me that now I'm not reading what God wrote very plainly, and I'm just twisting it to fit modern cosmology.

You are arguing like the atheist by only giving me the "literal" or "not at all" choices here. It boggles my mind that you could have chatted on here for thousands of posts and still not have a clue how TEs interpret the creation account. Which leads me to one last question for this post: What do you hope to get out of this conversation?

 

[Assyrian]

Either God spoke to Moses or he didn't, leaving the reader with one of two choices, you either believe the message or you don't.

Exodus 19:3 while Moses went up to God. The LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: 4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.

 

[Greg1234]

Exodus 19:3 while Moses went up to God. The LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: 4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.

From the Greek version one can get a clearer picture.

Ye have seen all that I have done to the Egyptians, and I took you up as upon eagles' wings, and I brought you near to myself.​

Notice the use of the word "as"

And even if it were to be rendered as a metaphor, how does that validate Darwinian evolution? Creationism is in the literal and as an interpretation. It is given in the Old and in the New Testament. It is found in currently accumulating data and that of the past. The only space I see for Darwinism is as an acceptance based solely on materialism.

 

[Assyrian]

From the Greek version one can get a clearer picture.

Ye have seen all that I have done to the Egyptians, and I took you up as upon eagles' wings, and I brought you near to myself.​

Notice the use of the word "as"

The word 'as' that wasn't there in Hebrew God spoke to Moses and was added in the Septuagint? What about it?

And even if it were to be rendered as a metaphor, how does that validate Darwinian evolution? Creationism is in the literal and as an interpretation. It is given in the Old and in the New Testament. It is found in currently accumulating data and that of the past. The only space I see for Darwinism is as an acceptance based solely on materialism.

Since there was no 'as' when God spoke these words to Moses, it was a metaphor. That of course doesn't validate evolution, it is the scientific evidence that does that. But lets not change the topic. What text does, and the reason I quoted it here, is it shows that God was quite happy to speak to Moses in metaphor. Which invalidates the assumption you and Mark seem to make, that if God spoke to Moses then we must take it literally.

 

[Greg1234]

I never said that Genesis was an analogy, I was talking about the analogy I used by saying that God knit you in your mother's womb.

From the Greek version it comes from Psalm 138 as

For thou, O Lord, hast possessed my reins; thou hast helped me from my mother's womb.​

And even if it were not rendered as such. For one, there is controversial data suggesting that form is "molded" as an extra portion of DNA. It could even go back further than that. Moreover, in the interest of proper science, fertilization and creation are both evidenced. In the interest of materialism however, they should be both materialistic.

It is the latter you are espousing here. It is not in the interest of data you bear discernment but in a belief, as you vaguely put it, in solely materialistic causes. Even if one were to relegate the data, and function solely on faith, where does materialism fit in with theistic faith? To function only on faith, then adopt materialism, is in fact materialism. You do know that right?

If I remember correctly you have said that you think that God works only in natural ways. What you are basically saying is that all supernatural phenomena and should be seen as a future materialistic process. That God is a metaphor for the natural world. Are you hearing yourself? Do you know which sect talks like that?

Similarities are evidence for it, differences are evidence of further separation. The nested hierarchy that we find in nature is evidence of it, and it would also predict that there would be more differences the further apart two species are on the tree of life.

Nested hierarchy is not evidence for Darwinism. The nested hierarchy is only evident because the process has stopped. When it was in continuation and one group of organisms supposedly had eyes and the other did not, this would be seen as a nest. When the process continues and eyes are placed on those outside the nest with eyes, this broke the hierarchy. Then you say "no, no use something else." Only, you weren't there.

Even something more obvious doesn't break the nest. Where one of the features of mammals would be listed as terrestrial and fish, aquatic, you have aquatic mammals (cetaceans). So how would the nested hierarchy deal with that? Mix and match- fish came on land, became mammals, then went back into the ocean and are now primarily aquatic. Simple. When you are able to do that, do you think that you can ever be able to refute a nested hierarchy of cars?

The cessation of creation is what facilitates the drawing up of a nested hierarchy. If genetic engineering were to take off today, supposing that certain features are not contingent upon each other, then a whole new list would materialize.

It is only because that the process has stopped, that you are able. However, Creation depicts a cessation and overall conservation, not Darwinism. You might say well it is still ongoing, give it a million years. But that's another story.

This assertion depends on the idea that mutations are random, and that comparable adaptation depends on a million years of random mutations. In recognition of intelligent mechanism responsible for adaptation, the process has effectively stopped as there is no need to "wait."

Atheists often attack the bible as unreliable science.

A materialist will attack the bible for no reason whatsoever. It's materialism.

 

[Greg1234]

The word 'as' that wasn't there in Hebrew God spoke to Moses and was added in the Septuagint? What about it?


Since there was no 'as' when God spoke these words to Moses, it was a metaphor. That of course doesn't validate evolution, it is the scientific evidence that does that. But lets not change the topic. What text does, and the reason I quoted it here, is it shows that God was quite happy to speak to Moses in metaphor. Which invalidates the assumption you and Mark seem to make, that if God spoke to Moses then we must take it literally.

What do you mean by "but let's not change topic?" You think that if someone observes creation in the data, they will bend over backwards and strain to interpret the bible in light of Darwinism?

Words to reconcile the bible with Darwinism are only relevant to those who find a need for such a reconciliation. I.e those who are already Darwinists by data. If I don't find Darwinism in the data, you making the bible look like it espouses Darwinism registers as a destructive element.

So the bible says Creation, the data says creation, but we should interpret as materialism. I wonder if you guys pay attention to yourselves.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Yes, and that is why the early church identified Wisdom with Christ. Like Wisdom, Christ is a pure emanation of God as described in the epistle to the Hebrews:

Some early Christians did and others didn't. There wasn't a single "early Christian" understanding of this issue. Many considered Wisdom to be so closely related to Christ, like one of His energies , to the extent that you could call him "Wisdom and Word of God" but still maintained a subtle distinction. Some like Origen rejected any distinction at all between the two. Valentinians considered the fallen Sophia to be the "stuff" of creation. Later some came to distinguish between an eternal Sophia and a Created Sophia as well.

And this is exactly what creation is not. Creation IS created.

I consider it created as well. Created in a similar manner to the way we create our dream world when we go to sleep. It's purely contingent and temporal. Christ on the other hand is eternally begotten of the Father.

But the classic Judaeo-Christian view, the one that did get enshrined in the canonical literature, is that the world of nature is made by God; it is not an extension of or emanation of God's own being. In creating, God gave being to that which is not God.

Not every Christian in the catholic stream of Christian thought interprets it that way. Meister Eckhart comes to mind as one example.

On this point though, Christianity upholds the same faith in creation as Judaism. There is no confusion of Creator with creation.

I don't believe their is a single Jewish view either. The Kabbalistic view of creation is very similar to what I was just describing for example. Are they not Jews?

 

[Assyrian]

What do you mean by "but let's not change topic?" You think that if someone observes creation in the data, they will bend over backwards and strain to interpret the bible in light of Darwinism?

Words to reconcile the bible with Darwinism are only relevant to those who find a need for such a reconciliation. I.e those who are already Darwinists by data. If I don't find Darwinism in the data, you making the bible look like it espouses Darwinism registers as a destructive element.

So the bible says Creation, the data says creation, but we should interpret as materialism. I wonder if you guys pay attention to yourselves.

What I mean is that your claim that the evidence doesn't support Evolution is a different issue from the lack of biblical support for literalism.