Creationism (doctrine and teaching)

[jlmagee]

I believe in a Spiritual connection. But the god of this world is Satan, so The Father has no direct connection with Sin. It's just not possible for the two to exist together. But through the Spirit, God is the master of those who accept his rule. Satan is the master of the rest.

We probably agree that when Jesus was resurrected, He was raised to a glorified body. Was it a spiritual body or His physical body?

Is it your take that the material world is evil and the spiritual world is perfected?

 

[crawfish]

Nope.
No list of miracles includes natural events.
A nice, breezy idea though.
Perfect for a Unitarian Universalist church.

My question is this: do you guys (YECs, mostly) understand that by undermining the natural world you are demeaning more than 99.9% of God's creative effort? And reducing the things that God is responsible for?

 

[mark kennedy]

My question is this: do you guys (YECs, mostly) understand that by undermining the natural world you are demeaning more than 99.9% of God's creative effort? And reducing the things that God is responsible for?

Let's see, believing that God created the heavens, earth, life, Adam and the new creation promised in the Revelation we are somehow demeaning God's creation. On the other hand if we embrace the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common descent we are affirming God's creation by giving him credit for nothing.

 

[mark kennedy]

Of course not, because I'm using actual definitions, instead of making them up like you do.

You've agreed to the two definitions for evolution, the scientific one, 'the change of alleles in populations over time' and the Darwinian (UCD). You have agreed, kicking, screaming and crying that Creationism is essential Christianity. The only definitions you are actually using are the ones you learned from me.

"admit"? I've pointed out for a long time, over and over to you that these words (like most words) have multiple definitions. I've also shown how you are, and have been, equivocating between different defintions.

The two definitions for "creationist" mark is equivocating between are:
"evolution denier" and,
"anyone who believes God created, even through evolution "

Evolution which is actually two definitions, 'the change of alleles in populations over time' and the Darwinian assumption of 'universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means' Creationists do not deny the former, nor to they categorically reject the latter.

Now the second definition is the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism limiting God to exclusively naturalistic means. God must remain secondary, He doesn't even get honorable mention as Designer. Both your bogus definitions are not only equivocating mutually exclusive direct contradictions but demonstrate that real world definitions do not interest you.

There are three words for 'Creation' in Genesis 1, two have essentially the same meaning. the 'bara', ex nihilo, is used of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1), life (Gen 1:21), and man (Gen 1:27). Unlike you I have stood on the Scriptures as canon, my definition comes from the Word of God. The scientific definition for 'evolution' I have is from evolutionary biologists and the one I use for Darwinism is from Darwinians.

Again mark tries to attack by using the word "admit", as if my posting of the definitons of these words (done to expose his equivocation) was someing that needed to be "admitted".

Again, Papias turns to his dark audience in the now empty Darwinian theater of the mind pleading for more applause. He hears laughter but little does he know, they are laughing at him.

When I asked you for a definition of 'evolution' you admitted that it was 'the change of alleles in populations over time'. That is to say, the definitions you mindlessly cut and pasted were saying exactly that. Then you admitted that you added UCD to the definitions you found demonstrating what I have been saying all along, you are equivocating two meanings with your use of 'evolution', rendering your definition 'evolution denier', moot.

Here are the defintions, again, for reference:

noun 1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

It is used in that sense as synonymous with change which is essentially meaningless to our discussion.

2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.

Same meaning, equally irrelevant.

3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

Which is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time except for one thing. Not all adaptive evolution requires a change in the gene pool, bet you didn't know that. It certainly doesn't require mutation or genetic drift even though they are often associated with and requisite to many if not most.

This is the only definition that can be considered scientific and that's only up until the 'by such' examples added as a for instance. This is essentially the same definition I have always accepted and used as the scientific definition of evolution.

4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.

The third time you have included an irrelevant common usage of the word, clearly indicating you put little or no thought into this.

5. Universal common descent (UCD)

Something you added to the definition by your own admission. This is an abbreviated definition for Darwinism, which is, 'the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

6. The biological descent of humans from non-human ancestors.

Which of course is included in the a priori assumption of UCD.

Deception, by mark pushing his made up definitions. Darwinism does not include metaphycial naturalism, and common descent is not an assumption.

Nonsense! Call me a liar again and I will report it without comment.

The scientic understanding of evolution includes common descent. Maybe consider taking a college class before continuing to disagree with the experts about something you don't understand?

Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution

Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. ...The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

From the National Academy of Sciences:

Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms. (Definitions of Evolutionary Terms, National Academy of Sciences)​

...means that you are excluding most Christians from the body of Christ. Not just the TE's, but OECs, day agers, gap creationists, progressive creationists, excluding even church fathers like Augustine and Origen who disagreed with a literal interpretation of Genesis. You tell all these Christians, many of whom consider themselves creationists of one type or another, that you don't consider them Christian.

Nonsense!

Such a vicious dismissal of so many of our brother and sister believers as "non-Christians" shows that you are more concerned about pushing your interpretation than you are about helping spread the Gospel and strengthen the body of Christ. It shows that you care more about pushing your interpreation than you do about actual doctrinal issues. Hint - the method that God used to create is not a salvation issue.

Notice what you failed to mention. The fact that I always include the original words for creation in Genesis as the basis for my definition. Notice I always include the Nicene Creed, something you won't so much as mention. Notice that you have slanderous put words in my mouth, twisting the meaning of my words the same way you twist the meaning of evolution and creation.

Notice that the philosophy you are defending so zealously has left you with nothing but ad hominem and equivocation fallacies to defend your position with. You dare not address the Biblical proof texts, the Nicene Creed, or the canons and dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.

Notice that all you are doing is attacking a Christian for believing that God created the universe, life and man by divine fiat.

No your not, your arguing in circles.

No, I have actually went to great pains to be clear, concise and unequivocal. You have either been in agreement with me or silent with regards to the core definitions I continue to use deliberately and effectively.

What a sad attempt at a dodge. You stated above you reject people who don't fit your literal interpretation of Genesis as non-Christian, even if they see God as the creator. Which method God used to create is not "essential doctrine".

God creating by exclusively naturalistic means is not the ex nihilo creation indicated by bara in Genesis 1:1, 21, and 27). There is no such thing as a 'before creation'.

No, you haven't. That's why I had to repeatedly clarify the definitions, even in this post.

I haven't challenged your definitions, in fact, I found them very helpful. A little pedantic but I have grown accustomed to sorting through these word salad posts of yours.

So then you agree you are using "evolution" to mean UCD? Nice to know, since you said that you don't dispute evolution. Maybe next time avoid the equivocation by stating that you don't dispute adaptation, but that you are a UCD denier.

No we can't. We can agree that the scientific definition for evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time. We can further agree that Darwinism adds universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means if you are willing to honestly admit the obvious.

Creationists can accept or reject evolution as natural history to whatever degree they see fit, I have no problem with that. What a Creationist really does is reserve the right to remain skeptical of Darwinian naturalistic assumptions despite the divisive and contentious attitude of theistic evolutionists like yourself.

What I deny is that Darwinism is anything other then one long argument against special creation.

Metherion pointed this out - that you:
1. relentlessly try to sneak metaphysical naturalism into the definition of Darwinism, by pointing to a cherry-picked and irrelevant quote from over 150 years ago.

2. Try to exclude UCD from the definitions of evolution, as if you've never taken a college class on evolution. .... um, hey, you may not have taken a college class on evolution....
3. Exclude believers from the body of Christ because of your personal hang ups.
3. Insist that your interpretation of Genesis is "essential doctrine", even though it is neither universal nor the only traditional view.

Which is not an accurate rendering of his argument nor my rebuttal:

My definition of Darwinism is 'the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means', a definition i have based on what they teach:

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.(D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial)

In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)

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 (MIT Biology)​

There are two definitions for evolution being used, now you even want to equivocate two definitions for creation. The truth is that Darwinian evolution is mutually exclusive with any and all theistic reasoning. Not because I say so but because they are explicit from 'ole flycatcher' to the militant Darwinians of our day

Richard Dawkins - Militant Atheism - TED - YouTube

There are three words translated 'created' in Genesis 1, knowing full well you haven't the slightest interest, They (bara, asah, yatsar) are sometimes used in parallel:

For thus saith the Lord that created (bara)the heavens; God himself that formed (yasar) the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed (asah) it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.(Isaiah 45:18)​

Bara (Strong's 1254) used independently expresses creation out of nothing (Gen. 1:1, 21, 27; Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs allow a much broader range of meaning. Bara is frequently found in parallel to these verbs, such as asah, 'to make' (Isa. 41:20; 43:7; 45:7, 12; Amos 4:13, yasar, 'to form' (Isa 43:1, 7; 45:7; Amos 4:13) and kun 'to establish'. A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa. 45:18 (Vines):​

Emphasizing the point that bara is used only of God:

The use of bara most relevant to our discussion are where to objects of the verb are nonpoetic, most of them occur in Genesis where...The writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent. material (Vines)​

I did a detailed exposition of the requisite texts and metherion responded with insults.

And what I would do with one of those is just what I would do with you: Realize I’m not being listened to, that everything I’m saying is being swept aside with no consideration, and end the game they are playing by refusing to give them any more of my time.

I responded:

No sir, you are the one who has swept aside my carefully prepared discussion of Darwinism, Evolutionary Biology and Creation. You have done so without even commenting on the more substantive elements of my responses even though I have answered most of your posts line by line.

Oh really? And what is that "clear standard" is not "mark's own personal interpretation"?

I told you to get yourself to a lexicon, I can't help it if you neglected to do so.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Keachian]

Evolution which is actually two definitions, 'the change of alleles in populations over time' and the Darwinian assumption of 'universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means' Creationists do not deny the former, nor to they categorically reject the latter.

What about the Evolutionary Creationist stance; Universal common descent exclusively by the providential creativity of God?

 

[mark kennedy]

What about the Evolutionary Creationist stance; Universal common descent exclusively by the providential creativity of God?

The operative term in Universal Common Descent is 'universal'. The Darwinian concept is based on the Darwinian argument against special creation.

Don't get me wrong, if you think evolutionary biology and the requisite disciplines of natural science have made their case and it dovetails with the clear testimony of Scripture go in peace, I have no problem with you.

The problem with UCD is that it knows no bounds. If you simply dismiss Genesis 1 as a poetic hymn of praise with no bearing on real world history how does this reflect on the rest of the historical narratives, particularly the Gospels.

Evolutionist creationist is an oxymoron at best since the secular world and theistic evolutionists at large reject any inference of God. Except for these boards you will not see the term 'evolutionary creationist', for good reason, they are contrary terms.

 

[miamited]

My question is this: do you guys (YECs, mostly) understand that by undermining the natural world you are demeaning more than 99.9% of God's creative effort? And reducing the things that God is responsible for?

Hi crawfish,

What a non-sensical statement.

As one who believes in the literal interpretation of the Genesis account, I give God the glory for all that He has made. Denying the worldview that the earth is so many billions of years old doesn't in any way deny the glory of God, in fact, it upholds a greater glory in that I believe that He made it all perfectly to start with and not that there needed to be some time allowance for the creation to perfect itself.

I don't in any way deny the natural world or anything in it, I just deny that those who draw certain conclusions about its age from the study of the natural world, have come up with the correct answer as to why things are what they are and appear as they appear.

Here's what Paul warned about in such things: See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Philosophy = Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

Paul warns us against 'hollow and deceptive' philosophy that is based on human tradition and the 'basic principles of this world' rather than on Christ. My 'philosophy' starts with Jesus being the one through whom all things are made. The universe, the earth, and all that exists. My philosophical foundation is that God has explained clearly all that I need to know about righteousness, salvation and the creation of all things. Every other teaching about these things is based on the basic principles of this world. I wholeheartedly reject those things and am instructed to do so lest I be deceived and made captive of the teachings of this world.

However, if your question still stands, no, I do not.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Metal Minister]

Hi crawfish,

What a non-sensical statement.

As one who believes in the literal interpretation of the Genesis account, I give God the glory for all that He has made. Denying the worldview that the earth is so many billions of years old doesn't in any way deny the glory of God, in fact, it upholds a greater glory in that I believe that He made it all perfectly to start with and not that there needed to be some time allowance for the creation to perfect itself.

I don't in any way deny the natural world or anything in it, I just deny that those who draw certain conclusions about its age from the study of the natural world, have come up with the correct answer as to why things are what they are and appear as they appear.

Here's what Paul warned about in such things: See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,http://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this worldhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15 rather than on Christ.

Philosophy = Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

Paul warns us against 'hollow and deceptive' philosophy that is based on human tradition and the 'basic principles of this world' rather than on Christ. My 'philosophy' starts with Jesus being the one through whom all things are made. The universe, the earth, and all that exists. My philosophical foundation is that God has explained clearly all that I need to know about righteousness, salvation and the creation of all things. Every other teaching about these things is based on the basic principles of this world. I wholeheartedly reject those things and am instructed to do so lest I be deceived and made captive of the teachings of this world.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

QFT, very well said my friend! Spot on!

 

[miamited]

Hi MM,

Thanks. It's good to see that you're still around. I have also noticed that you are more careful in picking your battles and more quickly getting to the point that you've said what you believe and explained your position clearly and then leave it alone.

God is good!!!
May he continue to bless you richly.
In Christ, Ted

(OK, NOW BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING)

 

[Metal Minister]

Hi MM,

Thanks. It's good to see that you're still around. I have also noticed that you are more careful in picking your battles and more quickly getting to the point that you've said what you believe and explained your position clearly and then leave it alone.

God is good!!!
May he continue to bless you richly.
In Christ, Ted

(OK, NOW BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING)

Lol, well I had a good instructor. Thank you my friend!

 

[Keachian]

The operative term in Universal Common Descent is 'universal'. The Darwinian concept is based on the Darwinian argument against special creation.

But we're not discussing an atheistic or deistic view of UCD, we're discussing a theistic view of such, you're arguing with theists stop treating us as if we're not.

Don't get me wrong, if you think evolutionary biology and the requisite disciplines of natural science have made their case and it dovetails with the clear testimony of Scripture go in peace, I have no problem with you.

It all comes down to a poor theology of science, I personally haven't seen any YEC with a good one, either it appeals to science being a tool of the devil, or it is inherently deistic and believes that we can test for God.

The problem with UCD is that it knows no bounds. If you simply dismiss Genesis 1 as a poetic hymn of praise with no bearing on real world history how does this reflect on the rest of the historical narratives, particularly the Gospels.

Well in the case that we do take Gen 1 to be a hymn of praise we have made a distinction in genre between Gen 1 and historical narrative, ie. it doesn't make any impact on viewing any other part of scripture as historical narrative. This holds true even of my own stance that it is a monotheistic treatise expounding on the purposefulness in God's creation.

Evolutionist creationist is an oxymoron at best since the secular world and theistic evolutionists at large reject any inference of God. Except for these boards you will not see the term 'evolutionary creationist', for good reason, they are contrary terms.

Theistic evolutionists who reject interference of God aren't holding up the theistic part of their name.

Your complaint however is that Theistic evolutionists don't take into account God's interference in their science, well I'm sorry but since God is untestable as he holds all things together (Col 1:17) the theistic response is that we praise God for what he does and understand it through science, the secularist who denies that God holds all things together does so on the basis that he understands how things work through science.

 

[crawfish]

Let's see, believing that God created the heavens, earth, life, Adam and the new creation promised in the Revelation we are somehow demeaning God's creation. On the other hand if we embrace the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common descent we are affirming God's creation by giving him credit for nothing.

If you don't give him credit for both then you're shrinking His influence. If you can't accept that God could work through common descent and evolution then you also cannot accept that God works through other natural phenomena like weather patterns or childbirth or quantum physics.

The existence of natural law is one of God's greatest miracles. I'm just sorry you don't seem to believe that.

 

[crawfish]

Hi crawfish,

What a non-sensical statement.

As one who believes in the literal interpretation of the Genesis account, I give God the glory for all that He has made. Denying the worldview that the earth is so many billions of years old doesn't in any way deny the glory of God, in fact, it upholds a greater glory in that I believe that He made it all perfectly to start with and not that there needed to be some time allowance for the creation to perfect itself.

I don't in any way deny the natural world or anything in it, I just deny that those who draw certain conclusions about its age from the study of the natural world, have come up with the correct answer as to why things are what they are and appear as they appear.

Here's what Paul warned about in such things: See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Philosophy = Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

Paul warns us against 'hollow and deceptive' philosophy that is based on human tradition and the 'basic principles of this world' rather than on Christ. My 'philosophy' starts with Jesus being the one through whom all things are made. The universe, the earth, and all that exists. My philosophical foundation is that God has explained clearly all that I need to know about righteousness, salvation and the creation of all things. Every other teaching about these things is based on the basic principles of this world. I wholeheartedly reject those things and am instructed to do so lest I be deceived and made captive of the teachings of this world.

However, if your question still stands, no, I do not.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Well then obviously, I wasn't talking to you. There are plenty of people who hold to a literal Genesis and a young earth who don't agree with you, though. I get told quite often that if evolution is true then it means God had nothing to do with it...which is very curious to me. Yours is the more rational opinion.

The whole "hollow and deceptive" philosophy is held by different people at different levels. Some limit it to evolution; some resist psychology, and some go at the idea wholesale and reject medicine as a whole. Remarkably, a lot fewer seem to reject the individualistic, materialistic and consumerist philosophies so prevalent in our country today.

In any case, I don't have a problem with people who believe in a young earth. I have problem with people who want to shut the conversation off and exclude people who think like me.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well then obviously, I wasn't talking to you. There are plenty of people who hold to a literal Genesis and a young earth who don't agree with you, though. I get told quite often that if evolution is true then it means God had nothing to do with it...which is very curious to me. Yours is the more rational opinion.

Curious? That's the whole point of Darwinism, perhaps not as Darwin originally presented it but today God gets credit for nothing. What miamited did and TEs invariably fail to do is appeal to Scripture at the heart of the emphasis. Let me show you what I mean:

The whole "hollow and deceptive" philosophy is held by different people at different levels. Some limit it to evolution; some resist psychology, and some go at the idea wholesale and reject medicine as a whole. Remarkably, a lot fewer seem to reject the individualistic, materialistic and consumerist philosophies so prevalent in our country today.

That was not what he was talking about, not even close. This was what he was talking about:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Col 2:8)​

I linked the quote to a pretty interesting Blue Bible app, maybe you should check it out.

More importantly, when you read his post, did this verse come to mind because it was the first thing that came to mine. It was at the heart of the emphasis, did that escape your attention because I never hear this kind of thing from TEs.

When you read this, what does it bring to mind?

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. (Nicene Creed)​

Now the Scriptures that are the basis for this confession are familiar to me. I'm seriously asking you here, what do they have in mind when they write this because the heart of the emphasis is not Genesis. Historically, the existence, divine attributes and eternal nature of God has never been defended because it's rarely contested, except in heretical traditions. There has certainly been no question the God created the universe, life and man by divine fiat.

But never mind what I see here, what do these three stanzas bring to mind when you read them?

In any case, I don't have a problem with people who believe in a young earth. I have problem with people who want to shut the conversation off and exclude people who think like me.

Now you are part of a category of Christians? According to the Scriptures, there is no such thing but Christ is all and in all. I don't know what you think but I have never shut out TEs, fundamentalists and evangelicals are constantly confronted by them, that's why the apologetic tone of my posts. I just want you to understand something, there is nothing that can separate a believer from Christ. I'm not the one shutting you out, I'm here seeking you out. Look at the poll, 13 young earth creationists responded to the poll, well over half. Would you like to know why they didn't post that much, because I have a pretty good idea.

Better yet, can you think of some reason why a Christian would shun a conversation like TEs and myself are engaged in here? Do the words 'divisive' and 'contentious mean anything to you? Don't get me wrong, I'm as bad as any of you, maybe even worse since I know better. My point is simply this, Theistic evolution is simply not viewed as a positive influence, in fact, it's not all that different from what you would hear from atheistic materialists. Not because you don't agree with me or Creationist lay ministers like Ham, Morris or Gish but because it's really not all that different.

Didn't you notice that miamited appealed to Scripture? What I consider 'curious' is that TEs rarely, if ever do. When they do the discussion has a highly skeptical tone. That I find curious, very curious indeed.

If you don't give him credit for both then you're shrinking His influence. If you can't accept that God could work through common descent and evolution then you also cannot accept that God works through other natural phenomena like weather patterns or childbirth or quantum physics.

The existence of natural law is one of God's greatest miracles. I'm just sorry you don't seem to believe that.

What is being described in Genesis is not divine providence, it's direct intervention. Is Christ being raised a naturally occurring phenomenon as well? What about the child of promse, Isaac? What about the nearly unbroken steam of miracles in Scripture.

What do you mean I can't accept that God works through other natural phenomenon? That's, as you've been told before, nonsensical. I just know the difference between a miracle and a natural phenomenon and to blend them together as if they were the same thing is deprecating to both.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

But we're not discussing an atheistic or deistic view of UCD, we're discussing a theistic view of such, you're arguing with theists stop treating us as if we're not.

UCD excludes God as cause, now ultimately you contend that God is still the primary mover but He is removed from the cause and effect chain of events going all the way back to the Big Bang. I know what evolution is as science and I know what it is as UCD and they are not the same.

You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian. I have never seen a Theistic Evolutionist able to disagree with that statement even though the sole purpose of it in a theological context is to argue against Creationism. What I think you guys need to do is to sort yourselves out because your problem isn't with me.

It all comes down to a poor theology of science, I personally haven't seen any YEC with a good one, either it appeals to science being a tool of the devil, or it is inherently deistic and believes that we can test for God.

You guys have a real problem discerning things that are obviously different, speaking of them as if they naturally belong together. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'theology of science' but I think it's another way of saying 'natural theology'. There is a good one out there that has stood the test of time, Aristotle, Newton, Paley and more recently Meyer and Behe all had a very similar one. It's come to be known as Intelligent Design.

Creationism is very different in one important respect, it's a Biblical doctrine based on the canonical teachings of Scripture. We are not talking about isolated texts taken out of their natural context but the clear meaning of broad sweeping testimonies that transcend Scripture, literally, from Genesis to Revelations.

How do you get deistic from Creationism, they are two extremely different views. A deist believes the world, and or the universe, was created like a watch, wound up and left to function mechanically. Deistic describes Theistic Evolution pretty much to a tee and Intelligent Design to a lessor degree but Creationism? You are clearly taking two concepts, deism and creationism and pretending the two are the same thing when they are clearly poles apart.

I don't know why you guys do that, it's obviously wrong.

Well in the case that we do take Gen 1 to be a hymn of praise we have made a distinction in genre between Gen 1 and historical narrative, ie. it doesn't make any impact on viewing any other part of scripture as historical narrative. This holds true even of my own stance that it is a monotheistic treatise expounding on the purposefulness in God's creation.

Genesis has always been and always will be understood as an historical narrative, otherwise, what are the genealogies doing in there? That's the thing, you don't get to change the meaning by reinterpreting it. If you want to do an exposition of the text and cross reference it with the requisite New Testament witness I would be happy to entertain your thoughts on the subject. Never the less, Genesis is written in the genre of an historical narrative and calling it something else won't change that.

Theistic evolutionists who reject interference of God aren't holding up the theistic part of their name.

I don't know if it's a good idea theologically to call God's interaction with His creation 'interference' but I think God acting in time and space can seem like an interruption of the natural order. I say that even though it's not really, for God, it's perfectly natural to do what only God can do. This has been the confirming aspect of all of Scripture, invariably when a new era of revelation commences it is confirmed with signs, miracles and wonders. Of course, no Christian can escape this, TE or otherwise.

I don't think Theistic Evolutionists are trying to remove the miraculous aspects of Scripture the way the Modernists have over the last hundred years or so. Never the less, there is a clear implication for the totality of Scripture if Creation is reduced to naturalistic cause and effect phenomenon. That is something TEs should be quick to address and yet they almost never do.

Complaining that I am challenging your Christian convictions won't solve any of the conflicts between Darwinian UCD and Christian theism. Not because I have a problem with you but because Darwinians have a problem with God as the cause of anything.

Your complaint however is that Theistic evolutionists don't take into account God's interference in their science, well I'm sorry but since God is untestable as he holds all things together (Col 1:17) the theistic response is that we praise God for what he does and understand it through science, the secularist who denies that God holds all things together does so on the basis that he understands how things work through science.

Science, at least since the Scientific Revolution, has been focused on natural phenomenon. This has created a logical and even disciplined separation between the cause and effect relationships determined through empirical testing and theology. I don't expect them to take God's miracles in Creation or elsewhere into some special consideration, God doing what only God can do is beyond the reach of empirical testing.

Science may well inform our understanding but just understanding the Gospel is a miracle human intellect cannot discern apart from God's direct intervention.

My complaint is that Theistic Evolution is diametrically opposed to Creationist thought, even the most general inference of God as Designer receives deliberate and unrelenting criticism and little else. What I think is happening here is neither good science or soundly theological reasoning. What I think is really happening is that Darwinism has disguised itself as science. I think TEs have been sold a fallacious philosophy that has left them hanging out on a limb and laughs as they hang in the lurch and those thin limbs creek. I'm not trying to push you further out, I'm trying to reach out and pull you back in.

I think you need to realize that Creationists are not the enemy. I think you had better because the culture war is over, we have abortion of demand, Gay marriage is quickly becoming a civil right and Creationism categorically barred from any and all academic or scientific consideration.

I think you should understand now because you are going to find out later, your next. It might seem fine and dandy now but the philosophy you are defending is opposed to anything remotely theistic. I think you should realize that if you are a Christian then you are by conviction a Creationist and attacking Creationism is self deprecating. Don't blame me when these 'evolutionists' you think you have so much in common with turn on you like starving wolves in winter.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Metal Minister]

Mark, I have a question considering you are far more well read on the subject. Is there any true hard evidence for ucd, or is it mostly assumption to back a theory?

 

[Keachian]

UCD excludes God as cause, now ultimately you contend that God is still the primary mover but He is removed from the cause and effect chain of events going all the way back to the Big Bang. I know what evolution is as science and I know what it is as UCD and they are not the same.

You're avoiding my complaint and reaffirming your misconception. I don't care what some would use UCD as demonstrating (that is using it to state that which it cannot, that God is not involved in creation) to the theist and therefore to those who are arguing with you UCD speaks of God's involvement in creation.

You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian. I have never seen a Theistic Evolutionist able to disagree with that statement

Well of course not because we fundamentally affirm that God created, to do otherwise would deny the the Theistic part of what we believe.

even though the sole purpose of it in a theological context is to argue against Creationism. What I think you guys need to do is to sort yourselves out because your problem isn't with me.

No, the sole purpose of Theistic Evolution in a theological context is to state that God is creator and inherently involved in his creation even if science seems to say otherwise.

You guys have a real problem discerning things that are obviously different, speaking of them as if they naturally belong together. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'theology of science' but I think it's another way of saying 'natural theology'. There is a good one out there that has stood the test of time, Aristotle, Newton, Paley and more recently Meyer and Behe all had a very similar one. It's come to be known as Intelligent Design.

Theology of science is how we approach science in the knowledge of God.

Creationism is very different in one important respect, it's a Biblical doctrine based on the canonical teachings of Scripture. We are not talking about isolated texts taken out of their natural context but the clear meaning of broad sweeping testimonies that transcend Scripture, literally, from Genesis to Revelations.

Sure

How do you get deistic from Creationism, they are two extremely different views. A deist believes the world, and or the universe, was created like a watch, wound up and left to function mechanically.

You have conflated Creationism with YEC. And yes I do believe that how some YEC view science is inherently deistic, I didn't say that all view it as deism, it reminds me of the somewhat apt description of people who are against abortion and for the death penalty "All that matters is life before birth, we don't care about the rest." Too often I have run across people across the whole origins debate that have the view that all that is important is whether God created and how he created. And it is, it is inherently deistic.

Deistic describes Theistic Evolution pretty much to a tee and Intelligent Design to a lessor degree but Creationism? You are clearly taking two concepts, deism and creationism and pretending the two are the same thing when they are clearly poles apart.

Theistic Evolutionists should believe that God both created and is in control of the universe through his providential care.

Genesis has always been and always will be understood as an historical narrative, otherwise, what are the genealogies doing in there? That's the thing, you don't get to change the meaning by reinterpreting it. If you want to do an exposition of the text and cross reference it with the requisite New Testament witness I would be happy to entertain your thoughts on the subject. Never the less, Genesis is written in the genre of an historical narrative and calling it something else won't change that

So Genesis 49 isn't prophecy? The Bible does have more than one genre per book, there are songs throughout the rest of the historical narratives; Ex 15, Jdg 5, 1Sa 2, 2Sa 1, 2 Sa 22, Luk 1. There is history in books of Prophecy; Is 36-39, Jer 52, parts of Daniel. And there are songs in books of Prophecy; Is 52-53, Hab 3.
Genre is defined by content, not content by genre and books need not be one genre.

So yes I will affirm that Genesis is predominantly historical narrative in genre, Gen 1 however is not and neither is Gen 49.

I don't know if it's a good idea theologically to call God's interaction with His creation 'interference' but I think God acting in time and space can seem like an interruption of the natural order. I say that even though it's not really, for God, it's perfectly natural to do what only God can do. This has been the confirming aspect of all of Scripture, invariably when a new era of revelation commences it is confirmed with signs, miracles and wonders. Of course, no Christian can escape this, TE or otherwise.

I had a mindblank, the word I was wanting to use is providence.

I don't think Theistic Evolutionists are trying to remove the miraculous aspects of Scripture the way the Modernists have over the last hundred years or so. Never the less, there is a clear implication for the totality of Scripture if Creation is reduced to naturalistic cause and effect phenomenon. That is something TEs should be quick to address and yet they almost never do.

Complaining that I am challenging your Christian convictions won't solve any of the conflicts between Darwinian UCD and Christian theism. Not because I have a problem with you but because Darwinians have a problem with God as the cause of anything.

You are not challenging any part of my theology, you are making incorrect statements and I'm trying to point them out to you.

Science, at least since the Scientific Revolution, has been focused on natural phenomenon. This has created a logical and even disciplined separation between the cause and effect relationships determined through empirical testing and theology. I don't expect them to take God's miracles in Creation or elsewhere into some special consideration, God doing what only God can do is beyond the reach of empirical testing.

And part of that God doing what only God can do is sustaining and providing care for his creation.

Science may well inform our understanding but just understanding the Gospel is a miracle human intellect cannot discern apart from God's direct intervention.

Amen.

My complaint is that Theistic Evolution is diametrically opposed to Creationist thought, even the most general inference of God as Designer receives deliberate and unrelenting criticism and little else.

Because the evidence supplied doesn't match up with what they want it to, not because we are opposed to the idea that God is creator, or him as designer. I have had YEC just as much tell me that I can't apply God as creator or God as designer in the way I want to mainly claiming "that makes God unloving," or "that's a silly design choice." Yet we are still the created beings what gives us the right to say to God that's unjust, he does all things to his counsel, not ours.(Romans 9:21)

What I think is happening here is neither good science or soundly theological reasoning. What I think is really happening is that Darwinism has disguised itself as science.

I think TEs have been sold a fallacious philosophy that has left them hanging out on a limb and laughs as they hang in the lurch and those thin limbs creek. I'm not trying to push you further out, I'm trying to reach out and pull you back in.

Yet you achieve neither.

I think you need to realize that Creationists are not the enemy. I think you had better because the culture war is over, we have abortion of demand, Gay marriage is quickly becoming a civil right and Creationism categorically barred from any and all academic or scientific consideration.

I do realise that. Do you?

I think you should understand now because you are going to find out later, your next.

Um, sorry but according to my watch the degradation of society, loosening of morals and attack on the faith started about the time of the reformation, it was a bit of a double edged sword, it called into question the Church and therefore God.

It might seem fine and dandy now but the philosophy you are defending is opposed to anything remotely theistic.

I defend theism, I have no care for the philosophy of naturalism.

I think you should realize that if you are a Christian then you are by conviction a Creationist and attacking Creationism is self deprecating. Don't blame me when these 'evolutionists' you think you have so much in common with turn on you like starving wolves in winter.

You're just as much attacking Creationism as you accuse us of doing and that's the problem here.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, I have a question considering you are far more well read on the subject. Is there any true hard evidence for ucd, or is it mostly assumption to back a theory?

The problem with an a priori (without prior) assumption is that it comes before the empirical testing. Your understanding of God's divine attributes is a prime example. The actual hard evidence is simply organized around fundamental assumptions, if they are alike that's a homology argument and if it's different it's attributed to natural selection acting gradually over time. That's what you are dealing with off the top.

Oh yea, you asked about the hard evidence. Genetics and Paleontology are the only two fields that speak directly to the theory of evolution as natural history. As a naturally occurring phenomenon there is powerful evidence that species change over time dramatically and almost constantly, that's the tricky part. There are numerous problems with it because the only things transcendent in natural science are natural laws. Darwinian UCD has never been based on natural law, unlike Mendelian Genetics that has produced two scientific laws. What we have learned from the evidence is there are limits beyond which species cannot evolve into an altogether different species, see my signature. For me personally the evolution of the human brain from that of apes is the single most important feature separating us from chimpanzees, considered our closest living relatives. If you look at the evidence you will find that changes in brain related genes produce disease and disorder, not adaptation on an evolutionary scale. That more then anything else is the evidence that convinced me that Darwinian UCD is a false assumption that is contrary to the actual evidence.

When it comes to Paleontology I have one question you might want to consider, where are the chimpanzee ancestors. So many crucial 'transitional' are far to close to the chimpanzee in order to be our ancestors, the Taung Child being one of the most obvious and crucial. It was considered a chimpanzee for nearly half a century and then Dart (who discovered the endocast) suggested a new classification to Louise Leaky who wrote a paper that dismissed the 'cerebral rubicon' which was the size limit of the Homo classification of the skull. The term was Homo Habilis.

I have poured over the scientific literature and the fact is that UCD is not and cannot be questioned. It is not based on scientific evidence, the evidence is organized around it. The problem is clearly, the a priori naturalistic assumptions of Darwinian evolution that are causing all the problems. They have simply rejected God as an explanation for the origin of life categorically.

If you want to explore the real scientific evidence it's out there. What you will find is that it's not buried in highly esoteric knowledge requiring extraordinary educational achievements. What you will find is that the hard evidence has clearly indicated that while evolution is universal to all living systems in natural science it is little more then rhetoric with regards to natural history since it cannot demonstrate the cause of crucial adaptations like the human brain and other vital organs.

In short, it's not the evidence, it's the naturalistic assumptions of UCD that is to blame for the confusion.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

You're avoiding my complaint and reaffirming your misconception. I don't care what some would use UCD as demonstrating (that is using it to state that which it cannot, that God is not involved in creation) to the theist and therefore to those who are arguing with you UCD speaks of God's involvement in creation.

First of all UCD rejects God's involvement not even tolerating God getting honorable mention as Designer. I don't dodge these questions, I seek them out. Now Theistic Evolutionists try to make it seem like it's the same thing as Creationism but they beg the question of why they continually argue against Creationism and now want to pretend to be defenders of it. Utterly absurd.

Well of course not because we fundamentally affirm that God created, to do otherwise would deny the the Theistic part of what we believe.

Which I consider an unavoidable, self evident, a priori fact.

No, the sole purpose of Theistic Evolution in a theological context is to state that God is creator and inherently involved in his creation even if science seems to say otherwise.

No sir, I strongly disagree based on the thousands of exchanges I have had with them over the years. What makes Theistic Evolution distinct is that it is specifically focused on arguing relentlessly against Creationism, even in it's most benign form known as Intelligent Design. If what you were saying were true the level of animosity for Biblical Creationism would be largely academic and it would be nearly identical to ID. That is simply not the case, Theistic Evolutionists argue against Creationism, what they believe beyond that is almost impossible to say because they do little else.

You have conflated Creationism with YEC.

Stop right there, I have done no such thing. I have made it clear how old the planet is is irrelevant to the Biblical doctrine of Creationism based on the original words translated, 'creation', in Genesis 1. If you want to argue against YEC then you should find someone interested is discussing the age of the earth. The doctrine of Creationism is focused on three primary ex nihilo events. The creation of the universe (Genesis 1:1), the creation of life (Genesis 1:21), and the creation of man (Genesis 1:27). Repeatedly I have made this abundantly clear and still you guys make the same statement that can only be considered a strawman argument since I never argued for it in all my time on these boards, let alone in this thread.

And yes I do believe that how some YEC view science is inherently deistic,

Which is absurd, deism is a belief that God in fact created and then did nothing. That describes Theistic Evolution since you credit Him with creating evolution and that's about it as far as I can tell.

Those two points are going to have to be cleared up because they are utterly false statements I find intolerable.

Theistic Evolutionists should believe that God both created and is in control of the universe through his providential care.

Which is classical deism:

Classical deism held that a human's relationship with God was impersonal: God created the world and set it in motion but does not actively intervene in individual human affairs but rather through Divine Providence. What this means is that God will give humanity such things as reason and compassion but this applies to all and not individual intervention. Deism
Wikipedia,​

The fact is that Creationists do not reject God's interaction with humanity either in creation or in our lives. You have applied two extraordinarily opposite terms together and it's utterly absurd.

So Genesis 49 isn't prophecy? The Bible does have more than one genre per book, there are songs throughout the rest of the historical narratives; Ex 15, Jdg 5, 1Sa 2, 2Sa 1, 2 Sa 22, Luk 1. There is history in books of Prophecy; Is 36-39, Jer 52, parts of Daniel. And there are songs in books of Prophecy; Is 52-53, Hab 3.
Genre is defined by content, not content by genre and books need not be one genre.

Genesis is an historical narrative focused on four events in the early chapters and then four individuals and their lineage in the subsequent chapters. Call it what you will, Genesis is clearly written as an historical narrative and any poetic, lyrical or metaphorical elements fall well within that general description.

So yes I will affirm that Genesis is predominantly historical narrative in genre, Gen 1 however is not and neither is Gen 49.

Genesis 1 is history past, at the time when Jacob blessed his sons it was predictive prophecy, which is history future. It was also predicted that the children of Israel (Jacob's other name) would be slaves in Egypt and that God would deliver them miraculously. The telling of the blessings are being recorded as historical, in that, it's records the predictions and associated blessing at their inception. Genesis 1 is a simple description of a series of events during Creation week and have none of the marks of poetic hyperbole of any kind.

Your at least focused on the Scriptures but you are trying to make them mean something that they just don't say.

I had a mindblank, the word I was wanting to use is providence.

If you read the article on Deism there are two views of providence mentioned, that of Ben Franklin and that of Thomas Jefferson. Franklin believed that 'the Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produc'd in the Course of Nature'. Jefferson was a strict deist that rejected miracles of any kind, I assume by providence you mean something closer to the former or am I mistaken?

You are not challenging any part of my theology, you are making incorrect statements and I'm trying to point them out to you.

No your not, your calling Creationism deism which is not only wrong, it's utterly absurd. Your also trying to make a strawman argument that I'm conflating YEC with Creationism in spite of the fact I have never argued the age of the earth even in passing.

And part of that God doing what only God can do is sustaining and providing care for his creation.

Yes but after it is created in the first place and what God created couldn't be more explicit in Genesis 1.

Because the evidence supplied doesn't match up with what they want it to, not because we are opposed to the idea that God is creator, or him as designer. I have had YEC just as much tell me that I can't apply God as creator or God as designer in the way I want to mainly claiming "that makes God unloving," or "that's a silly design choice." Yet we are still the created beings what gives us the right to say to God that's unjust, he does all things to his counsel, not ours.(Romans 9:21)

I have the opposite problem, the evidence supplied doesn't indicate Universal Common Descent, it indicates limits beyond which a species cannot evolve into an altogether different species. I am also painfully aware of the fact that all of us are guilty of worshiping and serving the creature more then the Creator (Romans 1:18-21)

Um, sorry but according to my watch the degradation of society, loosening of morals and attack on the faith started about the time of the reformation, it was a bit of a double edged sword, it called into question the Church and therefore God.

Ouch! Got no argument for that one since I pretty much agree. On the other hand consider this, would we have had a Scientific Revolution if the Protestant Reformation didn't happen?

I defend theism, I have no care for the philosophy of naturalism.

UCD is essentially naturalism since it's predicated on naturalistic assumptions. You might not care for it but UCD is based on it, as much as if not more so then the actual evidence.

You're just as much attacking Creationism as you accuse us of doing and that's the problem here.

Not only have you wrongly characterized my position as deistic but with equally absurd boldness claimed I am in opposition to Creationism. That makes no sense at all since I am continually being criticized for being a Creationist. You can't eat your cake and then have it, that's just not how it works.

You know what I think, I think you are deliberately calling white black and black white to see what my reaction will be. Did you think I was going to blow up and foolishly charge you like a blind bull? What I do when these fallacious false statements are presented is sit down, get comfortable and let you argue them in circles until you get tired of wasting your energy.

I would really like to get into this discussion but your too busy beating your strawman senseless to address my actual arguments. The only question in my mind is whether or not you believe what your saying. The way you are blending mutually exclusive concepts as if they were the same thing is one of a number of issue I have with Theistic Evolution, namely, the fallacious nature of it's logic.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Keachian]

First of all UCD rejects God's involvement not even tolerating God getting honorable mention as Designer. I don't dodge these questions, I seek them out. Now Theistic Evolutionists try to make it seem like it's the same thing as Creationism but they beg the question of why they continually argue against Creationism and now want to pretend to be defenders of it. Utterly absurd.

Naturalism is not UCD can we get that straight?

No sir, I strongly disagree based on the thousands of exchanges I have had with them over the years. What makes Theistic Evolution distinct is that it is specifically focused on arguing relentlessly against Creationism, even in it's most benign form known as Intelligent Design. I what you were saying were true the level of animosity for Biblical Creationism would be largely academic and it would be nearly identical to ID. That is simply not the case,

Except TE is Creationism it states that God created and is in control.

Theistic Evolutionists argue against Creationism, what they believe beyond that is almost impossible to say because they do little else.

I quick search of my recent posts would show that I'm Reformed, argue for God's immanence in his creation, and argue against dispensationalism, King james onlyism and sabbatarianism.

Stop right there, I have done no such thing.

I pointed to YEC specifically as having those two theologies of science, you reply by generalising it to all creationists, you either conflated the two or are misrepresenting what I am saying.

Which is absurd, deism is a believe that God in fact created and then did nothing. That describes Theistic Evolution since you credit Him with creating evolution and that's about it as far as I can tell.

See I have that same problem with YEC, perhaps you'll remember my signature from a while back (paraphrasing because I can't find the copy I posted on Facebook);
As Christians and theists we should affirm that not only has God done it but that he is continuing to do it.

Those two points are going to have to be cleared up because they are utterly false statements I find intolerable.

Tell me if you need more clarification, I have always used 'some' or contrasted between more than one point of view.

Which is classical deism:

Classical deism held that a human's relationship with God was impersonal: God created the world and set it in motion but does not actively intervene in individual human affairs but rather through Divine Providence. What this means is that God will give humanity such things as reason and compassion but this applies to all and not individual intervention. Deism
Wikipedia,​

The fact is that Creationists do not reject God's interaction with humanity either in creation or in our lives. You have applied two extraordinarily opposite terms together and it's utterly absurd.

This is the definition of Deism that I am working from:
Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things. God is thus conceived to be wholly transcendent and never immanent.

Being Christian and Reformed informs my Theistic Evolution, my Theistic Evolution does not inform either my Christianity, nor my Calvinism.

Genesis is an historical narrative focused on four events in the early chapters and then four individuals and their lineage in the subsequent chapters. Call it what you will, Genesis is clearly written as an historical narrative and any poetic, lyrical or metaphorical elements fall well within that general description.

You missed my point, the writers of scripture wrote what God wanted them to write without regard to modern concepts of genre.

Genesis 1 is history past, at the time when Jacob blessed his sons it was predictive prophecy, which is history future. It was also predicted that the children of Israel (Jacob's other name) would be slaves in Egypt and that God would deliver them miraculously. The telling of the blessings are being recorded as historical, in that, it's records the predictions and associated blessing at their inception. Genesis 1 is a simple description of a series of events during Creation week and have not of the marks of poetic hyperbole of any kind.

I'm not really wanting to stress Gen 49 as a direct parallel with Gen 1 as you seem to think I do, if you want a parallel of what I think is going on Jdg 4-5, Ex 14-15 and Gen 1-2 would be the ones I draw.

Your at least focused on the Scriptures but you are trying to mean something that they just don't say.

Well they also don't say that they are one genre per book.

If you read the article on Deism there are two views of providence mentioned, that of Ben Franklin and that of Thomas Jefferson. Franklin believe that 'the Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produc'd in the Course of Nature'. Jefferson was a strict deist that rejected miracles of any kind, I assume by providence you mean something closer to the former or am I mistaken?

I am talking about the continued sustaining act of God, nothing happens that is not his will, if he were to step away from creation as it were creation would no longer exist, that constant act which brings himself glory.

No your not, your calling Creationism deism which is not only wrong, it's utterly absurd. Your also trying to make a strawman argument that I'm conflating YEC with Creationism in spite of the fact I have made it crystal clear I do no such thing.

The start of this conversation was about a misunderstanding of how TEs understand UCD.

Yes but after it is created in the first place and what God created couldn't be more explicit in Genesis 1.

In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.

I have the opposite problem, the evidence supplied doesn't indicate Universal Common Descent, it indicates limits beyond which a species cannot evolve into an altogether different species.

I think you need to go back and look at the conclusion and application of Mendel's work, especially it's application since 1900.

I am also painfully aware of the fact that all of us are guilty of worshiping and serving the creature more then the Creator (Romans 1:18-21)

Yep.

Ouch! Got not argument for that one since I pretty much agree. On the other hand consider this, would we have had a Scientific Revolution if the Protestant Reformation didn't happen?

Probably not, as I said two edged sword.

UCD is essentially naturalism since it's predicated on naturalistic assumptions. You might not care for it but UCD is based on it, as much as if not more so then the actual evidence.

So enlighten me upon the Christian view of the transitional fossils.

Not only have you wrongly characterized my position as deistic but with equally absurd boldness claimed I am in opposition to Creationism. That makes no sense at all since I am continually being criticized for being a Creationist.

Well I consider myself a Creationist and you are adamant that my position isn't, I'm just calling them as I see them.

I would really like to get into this discussion but your too busy beating your strawman senseless to address my actual arguments. The only question in my mind is whether or not you believe what your saying.

Oh and here I was wanting the same thing

The way you are blending mutually exclusive concepts as if they were the same thing is one of a number of issue I have with Theistic Evolution, namely, the fallacious nature of it's logic.

Whereas I have the issue of you treating my position as if it is mutually exclusive with itself.