Creationism, Darwinism and Natural History

[Assyrian]

I have found Darwinians, including the vast majority of TEs, guilty of one major fallacy, ad hominem attacks.

Interestingly the first ad hom attack in this thread was you questioning if Papias was really a Christian.

Post 4: The question that comes to mind at this point is, are you an atheist?
​

The second one though not as popular is equally flawed, they equivocate two definitions of 'evolution'. One is the 'change of alleles in populations over time', the other is 'the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means'.

I have never seen an evolutionist on these boards admit to the two aspects of evolution.

Since 'the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means' is your definition of evolution and contains one of your pet anti evolution presuppositional arguments, you are hardly going to get an evo agreeing with it.

However, you have been told plenty of times that evolution is broader than the definition, 'the change in allele frequency in a population'. It includes the theory of evolution explaining the changes in alleles, and the billions of years of the evolution of life on earth. How can you claim they are equivocating when they told you again and again that evolution is broader than its narrow definition.

Biology is about living systems, not dead ancestors. So it's wrong to pretend that your philosophy of natural history is the same thing as scientific epistemology and evolutionary biology. I would not bring it up so much if evolutionists had anything else to offer but they seldom do.

Does that mean you can't write a biography about someone who is dead? Can't you write a biography about what happened when they were alive?

Doctrinally Theistic Evolution lacks any basic doctrinal clarity. They insist that the believe in God as Creator but never credit God with creating anything, He doesn't even get honorable mention as the Designer. The errors I have encountered in my discussions in this forum are staggering.

How many times have TEs told you they believe God created everything? The only error here is the way you keep making these claims about us no matter how many time we tell you otherwise.

 

[NoPostDocFrock]

How many times have TEs told you they believe God created everything? The only error here is the way you keep making these claims about us no matter how many time we tell you otherwise.

Yes, my biggest problem with MK relates to the Ninth Commandment.

 

[Erth]

That would make you a creationist in the doctrinal sense

No.

Something I think that you are blind to is the fact that Creationism is first and foremost an American phenomenon. It is largely irrelevant in European Christianity, and most of those who take it seriously in Europe are opposed to Christianity. In America however, Christians almost regardless of denomination seem to be affected by it, and the only ones who seem a little more sceptic than the others as a group are Catholics.

The word "Creationist" may have taken on a very loose sense in recent debates in America, but in Europe it stands for the ideas of American Creationism, and it is not a term that indicates someone who believes in the Christian teachings on origins. Such a person is in just about all cases simply called a Christian in Europe. I see no reason why things should be different from that in America, and frankly I think it defies reason as well as reasonable standards of intelligible speech, but if you say that in America it is simply a person who believes like a Christian then have it your way. Who am I to say that you should change?

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

dosn't having a belief in god, make you a creationist? i can understand how someone could be a deist, that god set things up, and sits back and watches everything unwind, but that's hardly christianity, is it?

 

[Erth]

dosn't having a belief in god, make you a creationist? i can understand how someone could be a deist, that god set things up, and sits back and watches everything unwind, but that's hardly christianity, is it?

Why can you not take things other people say at face value?

 

[Erth]

I mean when someone cannot even imagine any Christianity outside the dominion of the ideas of Creationism, and when someone has to assume that anyone who does not call himself a Creationist has to be a non-Christian, is it not then time to call that person out on his ignorance?

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

TE is a belief in classical darwinian evolution; random chance mutation, so where does god come into that scenario? to me it seems like deism, at best.

'mad creationists' as the media in the uk calls them, is grouping everyone into the us style YEC camp.

 

[Erth]

TE is a belief in classical darwinian evolution; random chance mutation

No, it is NOT. Only in the minds of extremely rigid Creationists, be the they "YEC" or "OEC".

Have you ever heard that Catholicism does not teach Creationism? Or are you so unaware of what Catholicism is that you think that Catholicism is Deism? Or do you perhaps not even consider Catholicism to be Christianity?

Catholicism is only an example here. Creationism is almost irrelevant in Christianity except in the English-speaking world, where it is more influential, or completely defining if the views expressed in this thread in the last two posts that were not written by me should be trusted.

 

[Erth]

I think that it is a cultural thing. So maybe not only in the minds of rigid Creationists then. The point is that some are so surrounded by the culture in which it is taken for granted that a Christian has to oppose any evolution of whatever sort.

 

[Erth]

Worse things could happen and I am still happy, but it is pointless to talk about it, it seems. Communication just does not happen at all.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

No, it is NOT. Only in the minds of extremely rigid Creationists, be the they "YEC" or "OEC".

Have you ever heard that Catholicism does not teach Creationism? Or are you so unaware of what Catholicism is that you think that Catholicism is Deism? Or do you perhaps not even consider Catholicism to be Christianity?

Catholicism is only an example here. Creationism is almost irrelevant in Christianity except in the English-speaking world, where it is more influential, or completely defining if the views expressed in this thread in the last two posts that were not written by me should be trusted.

i dont think the pope said that any catholic needed to accept evolution. and the issue isn't important to catholics. it depends on what you define creationism as. i define it that god created, and had some input in creation. if god didn't create in any way, what then?

the anglican church accepts darwinism, but that dosn't mean that people cant have their own beliefs, that would be narrow minded, and the same mentality as the galieo conflict.

 

[Erth]

it depends on what you define creationism as. i define it that god created

And I do not define it that way. Deal with it.

 

[Papias]

HCG wrote:

TE is a belief in classical darwinian evolution; random chance mutation, so where does god come into that scenario?

Simply false. It sounds like you've been listening to what YEC's say about TE's, insteand of listening to what TE's actually say.

Many TE's, myself included, see God as active throughout the process, by guiding evolution, supporting & driving the natural world, and likely even causing the many beneficial mutations. This is supported by scripture, such as Heb 1:3 and John 5:17.

Papias

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

(This is somewhat off-topic but I'd like to hear your answer.)

Many TE's, myself included, see God as active throughout the process, by guiding evolution, supporting & driving the natural world, and likely even causing the many beneficial mutations. This is supported by scripture, such as Heb 1:3 and John 5:17.

Most evolutionists (theistic or atheistic) say that evolution is a blind process - or rather, while natural selection is not "blind, the mutations which drive evolution happen randomly. So how exactly is God "guiding" evolution?

Your example, that He may somehow be causing beneficial mutations - how does that work? Is He also causing detrimental mutations? Does He pick and choose which animals or people He gives beneficial mutations to?

I hope that doesn't sound too rude - like I said, I'd like to hear your answer. I've asked this question before and the answer(s) I got were that what may appear random to us may really have a purpose we are not aware of.

 

[Papias]

Your example, that He may somehow be causing beneficial mutations - how does that work?

God causes them to happen, just as He causes everything in the real world to happen. The Pope (well, the Benedict formerly known as Pope) proposed this idea too. I don't claim to know (based on evidence) that it is true, only that it is plausible.

Is He also causing detrimental mutations? Does He pick and choose which animals or people He gives beneficial mutations to?

Everything happens according to God's plan, so yes.

I

hope that doesn't sound too rude - like I said, I'd like to hear your answer. I've asked this question before and the answer(s) I got were that what may appear random to us may really have a purpose we are not aware of.

No problem. To answer, I'll say that what may appear random to us may really have a purpose we are not aware of.

Papias

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Is He also causing detrimental mutations? Does He pick and choose which animals or people He gives beneficial mutations to?

Everything happens according to God's plan, so yes.

Hm. So if for example a child is born with Down's syndrome, was that extra chromosome part of God's plan? Would God deliberately make a foetus disabled?

 

[Erth]

(This is somewhat off-topic but I'd like to hear your answer.)


Most evolutionists (theistic or atheistic) say that evolution is a blind process - or rather, while natural selection is not "blind, the mutations which drive evolution happen randomly. So how exactly is God "guiding" evolution?

Your example, that He may somehow be causing beneficial mutations - how does that work? Is He also causing detrimental mutations? Does He pick and choose which animals or people He gives beneficial mutations to?

I hope that doesn't sound too rude - like I said, I'd like to hear your answer. I've asked this question before and the answer(s) I got were that what may appear random to us may really have a purpose we are not aware of.

You do not have to be an evolutionist (or Darwinist, e.g.) in the ordinary sense to think that theistic evolution happened. If you ask me what the basic difference is between Creationism and Theistic Evolution then I would say that Creationists believe that God created each thing in absolute separativity from all the other things. Theistic evolution proponents think that God created the universe as a whole and that He then guided the evolution of it actively, and that He created the variety of species this way. I also think that He was in control of that process, and I think that is an important point.

But in any case, theistic evolution does not have to mean that you believe that God created by random chance mutations or that He was just moderating the Darwinian evolution process.

 

[AV1611VET]

Embedded Age Creationist here.

I believe God created the universe in six days as laid out in Genesis 1, but with age embedded into it.

Thus Adam came on the scene a mature adult; having age, but not having aged.

I define Embedded Age as "maturity without history."

 

[mark kennedy]

Interestingly the first ad hom attack in this thread was you questioning if Papias was really a Christian.

Post 4: The question that comes to mind at this point is, are you an atheist?
​

That's because he used Howard Van Till as an example of the Theistic Evolutionist view.

Since 'the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means' is your definition of evolution and contains one of your pet anti evolution presuppositional arguments, you are hardly going to get an evo agreeing with it.

It doesn't matter if the agree or not, they demonstrate the truth of what I'm saying with their arguments like clock work.

However, you have been told plenty of times that evolution is broader than the definition, 'the change in allele frequency in a population'. It includes the theory of evolution explaining the changes in alleles, and the billions of years of the evolution of life on earth. How can you claim they are equivocating when they told you again and again that evolution is broader than its narrow definition.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true, it makes it redundant. The difference between evolution as natural science and natural history is evident and obvious. The need to separate between what the word means and how it is used by someone is vital to dealing with modernist thought. They like to redefine words without telling you, Paul Tillich is a prime example of putting an atheistic philosophy in theological terminology.

The old saw that I must be anti-evolution because I'm a Creationist is not only not true, it's silly. That is unless you equivocate your naturalistic assumptions with natural science which is the practice of all evolutionists, theistic or otherwise.

Does that mean you can't write a biography about someone who is dead? Can't you write a biography about what happened when they were alive?

Of course you can but we don't call that science, we call that an historical narrative.

How many times have TEs told you they believe God created everything? The only error here is the way you keep making these claims about us no matter how many time we tell you otherwise.

That will get you into Genesis 1 but never get you past it. At least the Intelligent Design crowd give him credit for designing something, TEs can't even do that. What is the difference between a Theistic Evolutionist and a Darwinian who is an atheistic materialist. When it come to the creation of life there is none.

Moses didn't invent the story of Creation and they didn't copy it from cuneiform tablets. The revelation is from the only one who could have known what happened during creation week, God himself. You conveniently ignore this vital point of doctrine along with virtually every point of doctrine in Christian theism which is the practice of most TEs.

Papias has at least identified himself with a formal theology, that ties him to a standard. What do you believe, I'm not trying to be facetious here I'm seriously asking. What makes a person a Christian?

You give me your Christian testimony and I will be happy to share mine. I know all too well what you don't believe, you don't believe Genesis has any credibility as an historical narrative. I know you abandoned the Catholic Church, well, as a matter of fact so did I but that's because I became an evangelical.

What exactly do you believe about God and the historicity of Scripture? As a matter of fact I would like to hear you thoughts on God as you understand him. This is a theology forum after all.

 

[mark kennedy]

No.

Something I think that your are blind to is the fact that Creationism is first and foremost an American phenomenon.

Something I think you are blind to, Creationism is first and foremost essential doctrine.

It is largely irrelevant in European Christianity, and most of those who take it seriously in Europe are opposed to Christianity. In America however, Christians almost regardless of denomination seem to be affected by it, and the only ones who seem a little more sceptic than the others as a group are Catholics.

The Creation Science movement and it's intellectual cousin Intelligent Design are clearly an American phenomenon, I don't deny that. The thing is that atheism took root in Europe and a lot of the time religion there is ethnic, traditional and sometimes even nationalistic. Creationism as it's come to be known is really nothing more then a response to Darwinism, Humanism, Atheism and Liberal Theology that has hounded Bible believing Christians for 150 years now.

The word "Creationist" may have taken on a very loose sense in recent debates in America, but in Europe it stands for the ideas of American Creationism, and it is not a term that indicates someone who believes in the Christian teachings on origins. Such a person is in just about all cases simply called a Christian in Europe. I see no reason why things should be different from that in America, and frankly I think it defies reason as well as reasonable standards of intelligible speech, but if you say that in America it is simply a person who believes like a Christian then have it your way. Who am I to say that you should change?

Ok, I see what your getting at here and in that sense I agree. The problem starts when the Church decides it wants to get into politics, it's almost always a mistake. Some people wanted to teach Creationism in the public schools because Social Darwinism was a lot like the red scare of Communism. Perhaps well meaning they went into the public arena and before long up was down and black was white, but hey, that's politics. There's a long history there so I won't bore you with the details.

My only real interest is in the Bible as history. It's telling me something very different about the world and how God interacts with creation then I'm hearing anywhere else, even in the church. I have always been interested in the Bible as history and just can't resist the ongoing thing with the Darwinian Creationism intellectual warfare going on. To be honest I think most Theistic Evolutionists are collateral damage who have fallen prey to ruthless atheistic intellectuals who want nothing less then the irradiation of all theistic thought.

Creationism is prolific in America because the government is barred by law from interfering. It can't be censored and it can't be endorsed. You would probably never have heard of Creationism if it hadn't found it's way into the courts from the Scope's monkey trial to the Dover case in Pennsylvania. That's what it really comes down to, not science, not religion, not doctrine, Creationism has become a battle field in a culture war that raged in this country now for decades.

I personally think the smoke is clearing and both sides are suing for peace. Your right, if someone believes God created Adam or simply believes the Gospel but think Genesis 1 is figurative their just Christians with their own views. That's not whats going on here, what you are seeing is what happens when religion gets involved in politics and historically it's been the bane of religion. I like to think the culture war is over, God knows it's went on long enough.

Grace and peace,
Mark