Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism

[LOCO]

You have to love this little piece right there. Since when did accepting the assertion of a materialist because it doesn't automatically exclude A and B become an option? Do you guys even know how you sound? The battle between materialism and idealism is drawn out. This generation however seems to be content with slinking back in fear of materialistic bloviations

You've said nothing up there but "Creationism cannot be proven and materialism's random building of man cannot be proven", so lets pick up materialistic doctrine. It's quite telling to see what's becoming of you guys (impersonators who don the Christian icon to seed materialism here are excluded).

If you have the data then present it. No experiment has ever refuted Creationism and they simultaneously point to it. You cannot prove a historical event anymore can you can prove that the Great Pyramid was intelligently designed. No experiment has refuted that either.

"It's quite telling to see what's becoming of you guys (impersonators who don the Christian icon to seed materialism here are excluded). "

I see you are now populating your response with offensive, personal insults so I will not respond further.

I was merely presenting the Catholic perspective. You don't have to like it or agree with it but resorting to insults is childish.

Bless you

 

[Greg1234]

"It's quite telling to see what's becoming of you guys (impersonators who don the Christian icon to seed materialism here are excluded). "

I see you are now populating your response with offensive, personal insults so I will not respond further.

I was merely presenting the Catholic perspective. You don't have to like it or agree with it but resorting to insults is childish.

Bless you

Where exactly were you insulted? It's well known that materialists will reach for any hint of an insult in order to ameliorate the torrent they distribute per hour. I don't take you for a materialist, and you certainly weren't insulted.

 

[LOCO]

LOCO-

The RCC support for theistic evolution has been explained to mark many times, both in multiple threads as well as in a debate I had with him at this link:

This same point is true also for Chrisitans who use deceptive tactics and falsehoods, even after being caught many times doing so. Such Christians make Christianity look immoral, after they've made Christianity look ignorant.

And we wonder why so many are leaving Christianity?

Papias

Hello Papias,

Yes, it is becoming increasingly evident to me re:mark. It's a pity that one of the unintended consequences is that more people are leaving.

I wonder how many here support YEC.

 

[LOCO]

.

 

[Greg1234]

Read the highlighted section...'masquerading as Christians etc

Yes, there are well known atheists who transparently don the Christian icon and it is well known that they are atheists. The point was made to clarify.

 

[mark kennedy]

You say that Darwinian naturalistic assumptions exclude God as a cause. I'm still trying to clarify here, do you think theistic evolution is the exact same in that it also excludes god as a cause or is God meaningful in the TEs view? I'm just trying to unravel your understanding of our view.

Like I said, 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?

Theistic evolutionists insist that they believe in God as Creator but any inference that God created anything incites Theistic Evolutionists into an angry mob. If a Creationist has the audacity to believe the clear testimony of Scripture and convinced the Darwinian evolution is opposed to Christian theism then they are fools, liars or something worse.

So tell me plainly, what exactly do Theistic Evolutionists believe God created?

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, there are well known atheists who transparently don the Christian icon and it is well known that they are atheists. The point was made to clarify.

It's not that they are atheists, I've never thought that. The naturalistic assumptions of 19th century naturalism is opposed to any belief in God as anything other then an abstraction. Examples of this abound but you should understand, this all comes down to philosophy.

They keep getting indignant at the mere suggestion that Theistic Evolution is opposed to God as Creator. All well and good, I know I get pretty indignant when they call me a liar because I don't happen to agree with their naturalistic assumptions. But if they worship God as Creator then why is it that they spend the vast majority of their time attacking creationists for taking the creation account literally?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[miamited]

Hi Loco,

You asked how many here support YEC? Count me as one.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[LOCO]

Hi Loco,

You asked how many here support YEC? Count me as one.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Thanks miamited.

 

[philadiddle]

So tell me plainly, what exactly do Theistic Evolutionists believe God created?

I will answer this in a few posts, but first I'd like to know; Did God create you or were you born through natural processes? I'm only going to let you pick one of the two choices, combining both is not an option.

(BTW - I started assuming a polite tone while reading posts, it helps make my responses more polite as well. Hopefully you will read my posts with the same tone in mind.)

 

[Assyrian]

It's not that they are atheists, I've never thought that. The naturalistic assumptions of 19th century naturalism is opposed to any belief in God as anything other then an abstraction. Examples of this abound but you should understand, this all comes down to philosophy.

They keep getting indignant at the mere suggestion that Theistic Evolution is opposed to God as Creator. All well and good, I know I get pretty indignant when they call me a liar because I don't happen to agree with their naturalistic assumptions. But if they worship God as Creator then why is it that they spend the vast majority of their time attacking creationists for taking the creation account literally?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Glad to see you trying to curb the insults a fellow creationist is throwing at TEs, though it is a bit disingenuous when you try to downplay you own gross insults at the same time. Telling us we reject God as Creator is a 'mere suggestion'? I don't think anybody called you a liar for not agreeing with our view of naturalism, you were called a liar for repeatedly claiming that people who fervently believe God is the creator reject God as creator. Perhaps it is easier to convince yourself you are being persecuted for you view of naturalism, when in fact you were being called a liar for telling lies about your fellow believers.

...But if they worship God as Creator then why is it that they spend the vast majority of their time attacking creationists for taking the creation account literally?

Have you ever thought that maybe there are other things we disagree with, rather than one of the few things we do agree on about Genesis, that it proclaims God as the creator of everything?

...The naturalistic assumptions of 19th century naturalism is opposed to any belief in God as anything other then an abstraction...

Interestingly, the only one displaying a nineteenth century naturalistic view of God in all this is you. The reason you think naturalistic processes means God is not a creator, is because you think God cannot work through the naturalistic processes he created. You buy into the 19th century naturalistic philosophy that natural law excludes God. By itself this view is deism, but you maintain your theism by insisting God still works supernaturally. But you have still bought into the 19th century deist view that naturalistic processes exclude God. In doing so you reject the historical Christian understanding that God works both through supernatural miracle, and through providence. That is what we TEs believe, that both the natural process of biology and the supernatural miracles are God's work of creation. We do not deny God is the creator, you just think we must because deny God can work through natural process.

 

[Greg1234]

It's not that they are atheists, I've never thought that.

People like SignofGod? I would say they are and everyone knows this.

The naturalistic assumptions of 19th century naturalism is opposed to any belief in God as anything other then an abstraction. Examples of this abound but you should understand, this all comes down to philosophy.

Yep. However these guys don't recognize it as that. They see it as a savior of sorts as it bulks up the creation of man with materialistic stories. Creation may be more detailed, but it's just a detailed account of Creationism. An acceptance of Darwinism because it sounds better than "poof" is unwarranted.

They keep getting indignant at the mere suggestion that Theistic Evolution is opposed to God as Creator. All well and good, I know I get pretty indignant when they call me a liar because I don't happen to agree with their naturalistic assumptions. But if they worship God as Creator then why is it that they spend the vast majority of their time attacking creationists for taking the creation account literally?

Grace and peace,
Mark

They think that Darwinism is correct, so they that they're doing a good thing. When all is said and done, it could even be the church which gets the blame. It would be the church who promoted Darwinism because they interpreted it that way and physical science is vindicated.

 

[Willtor]

...

So tell me plainly, what exactly do Theistic Evolutionists believe God created?

Everything. God created everything. Visible and invisible.

 

[mark kennedy]

I will answer this in a few posts, but first I'd like to know; Did God create you or were you born through natural processes? I'm only going to let you pick one of the two choices, combining both is not an option.

Of course I was born as the result of natural processes, with Adam and Eve that option is not so simple. But ok, if Adam had ape ancestors or Moses was waxing poetic then perhaps there is no conflict between TOE and Genesis 1, 2. There still remains the means to the end, namely, highly specific molecular mechanisms that can cause a prokayrote type ancestor to split into plantea and animalia cells, organized into reproducing systems and species.

My point is this, how far do you have to back up until God becomes a viable cause because it seems to be after the first verse you lose most TEs. I'm not trying to be confrontational, Adam being specially created and being evolved are mutually exclusive which is something we seem to agree on.

(BTW - I started assuming a polite tone while reading posts, it helps make my responses more polite as well. Hopefully you will read my posts with the same tone in mind.)

Yes I know and I appreciate it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Everything. God created everything. Visible and invisible.

That leaves a puzzling question, if God is Creator then why are you so antagonistic toward people who's views are defined by believing God created?

The specifics are vitally important both scientifically and theologically and the level of contention on this issue makes your generality unresponsive. Specifically, 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?

What exactly did God create? I only ask because every time a creationist has the audacity to so much as hint that something looks intelligently designed or created he is immediately under fire. When it comes to the origin and development of life in general and man in particular at some point there has to be a standard.

There has to be an instrumental cause and a primary first cause, obviously, we are in agreement on the first cause. In order for things to evolve there has to be very specific molecular mechanisms, highly conserved genes and highly developed traits established.

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...

What exactly did God create that represents the means to the end of evolution? Genus, Phylum, Kingdom? Did God create the core molecular mechanisms are do they always have naturalistic processes that represent the instrumental cause?

It sounds to me like all we agree on is the first verse of the Bible, what was the point of the six days of creation if Moses is describing naturalistic processes?

BTW, I have answers for all of these questions that have a sound doctrinal foundation. I want to know what you think.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

People like SignofGod? I would say they are and everyone knows this.

I've seen that to, I won't name them but there are a couple of philosophical atheists that think they can still be Christians. I even met a Biola student who believed that agnosticism was the proper worldview for Christians. Discretion and a fair amount of discernment is helpful in those situations.

Yep. However these guys don't recognize it as that. They see it as a savior of sorts as it bulks up the creation of man with materialistic stories. Creation may be more detailed, but it's just a detailed account of Creationism. An acceptance of Darwinism because it sounds better than "poof" is unwarranted.

There is an academic bias against anything supernatural, any hint of a miracle is automatically rejected. This has gotten into theology and the worst of these is Liberal Theology. Hegel for instance, simply said that the best thing to do is to ignore them. Thomas Jefferson (probably an atheist) complied a version of the New Testament with all references to miracles edited out. Darwinism comes before the evidence and directs the observer on how the evidence is to be organized.

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

‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species...being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.’​

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

It’s clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. (Prof. Robert Weinberg, MIT Biology)​

Darwinian evolution is not a conclusion, it's an a priori assumption and transcends all of life and natural history.

They think that Darwinism is correct, so they that they're doing a good thing. When all is said and done, it could even be the church which gets the blame. It would be the church who promoted Darwinism because they interpreted it that way and physical science is vindicated.

People must be continually reminded that things are evolved rather then created. The reason the Darwinian must do a full court press is because everyone knows certain things about God from creation.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. (Romans 1:18,19)​

If they won't respond to the natural revelation of God's glory being reflected in nature they will never understand the Gospel.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome [understood] it. (John 1:1-5)​

We know the origin life, His name is Jesus.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Ishraqiyun]

This world is like the dream of God. He created it in much the same manner that you create a dream world of your own when you fall asleep at night. The fact that the dream world seems to follow certain rules and processes (one of which we call evolution) doesn't imply that God isn't the Creator.

 

[Willtor]

That leaves a puzzling question, if God is Creator then why are you so antagonistic toward people who's views are defined by believing God created?

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.

The specifics are vitally important both scientifically and theologically and the level of contention on this issue makes your generality unresponsive. Specifically, 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?

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

What exactly did God create? I only ask because every time a creationist has the audacity to so much as hint that something looks intelligently designed or created he is immediately under fire. When it comes to the origin and development of life in general and man in particular at some point there has to be a standard.

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.

There has to be an instrumental cause and a primary first cause, obviously, we are in agreement on the first cause. In order for things to evolve there has to be very specific molecular mechanisms, highly conserved genes and highly developed traits established.

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...

What exactly did God create that represents the means to the end of evolution? Genus, Phylum, Kingdom? Did God create the core molecular mechanisms are do they always have naturalistic processes that represent the instrumental cause?

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.

It sounds to me like all we agree on is the first verse of the Bible, what was the point of the six days of creation if Moses is describing naturalistic processes?

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.

BTW, I have answers for all of these questions that have a sound doctrinal foundation. I want to know what you think.

Grace and peace,
Mark

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.

 

[philadiddle]

Of course I was born as the result of natural processes, with Adam and Eve that option is not so simple.

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?

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.

But ok, if Adam had ape ancestors or Moses was waxing poetic then perhaps there is no conflict between TOE and Genesis 1, 2. There still remains the means to the end, namely, highly specific molecular mechanisms that can cause a prokayrote type ancestor to split into plantea and animalia cells, organized into reproducing systems and species.

Do you think that God is incapable of doing this?

My point is this, how far do you have to back up until God becomes a viable cause because it seems to be after the first verse you lose most TEs. I'm not trying to be confrontational, Adam being specially created and being evolved are mutually exclusive which is something we seem to agree on.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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

Cheers,

Phil

 

[gluadys]

This world is like the dream of God. He created it in much the same manner that you create a dream world of your own when you fall asleep at night. The fact that the dream world seems to follow certain rules and processes (one of which we call evolution) doesn't imply that God isn't the Creator.

That is certainly Hindu orthodoxy. I don't see a way to incorporate it into a biblical understanding of creation though. To me, one of the fundamentals of creation is that it is real and distinct from God: contingent yet autonomous, not a dream.

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