Creationism over atheism!

[DarrenBurnside]

Today's view of the beginning of life, in society, is based on science, which leaves people who aren't fully educated on the matter to scoff at the idea of God. Well here's an opportunity for a creationist and fundamentalist to scoff back. One might say 'God didn't create the universe, everyone knows it was the Big Bang.' I say if you have read a Brief History of Time, then you would know that even Stephen Hawking said this only accounts for why the universe is expanding, it doesn't explain at all how existence came to be. Further more, he says that he is not saying that God didn't create the Big Bang.

I myself am interested in the Big Bang, it is an amusing theory, but I choose to stick with Biblical explanations of the creation of life. One might laugh and say 'the universe and Earth could not have been created in 6 days, it took billions of years.' I say the universe is theoreically impossible to exist, as something cannot come from nothing, so it's existence could have come into being at any rate of time in any possible way you can think of.

 

[Darkness27]

I myself am interested in the Big Bang, it is an amusing theory, but I choose to stick with Biblical explanations of the creation of life. One might laugh and say 'the universe and Earth could not have been created in 6 days, it took billions of years.' I say the universe is theoreically impossible to exist, as something cannot come from nothing, so it's existence could have come into being at any rate of time in any possible way you can think of.

This may not be the right place for this discussion, as I'm not a creationist, if not we can always move it to the origins section. Anyway, do you think it is possible that the big bang could have happened with God behind it? It is accepted by every cosmologist that there was a big bang because the evidence is so overwhelming. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the physical universe came about via the big bang with God behind it?

Also, when talking about quantum physics, "nothing" is really "something" - and accounts for ruffly 90% of the energy within the universe. And because of certain properties of our universe, it could have been made from "nothing".

 

[mark kennedy]

I believe in the big bang, God spoke and 'bang', there it was. That is about as close to the creation account as modern science has ever gotten.

 

[busterdog]

I believe in the big bang, God spoke and 'bang', there it was. That is about as close to the creation account as modern science has ever gotten.

Mark, you are one tenacious dude. Good for you. Blessings.

 

[Darkness27]

I believe in the big bang, God spoke and 'bang', there it was. That is about as close to the creation account as modern science has ever gotten.

What do you think of the same science that says the big bang happened, but also says that it happened billions of years ago? If I remember correctly you're a YEC, so to me it seems like your picking and choosing which science to accept. Or do you simply not accept cosmology and somehow get the 'big bang' from Genesis?

 

[crawfish]

Mark, you are one tenacious dude. Good for you. Blessings.

Glad you see you're still around, too.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, you are one tenacious dude. Good for you. Blessings.

You hang in there pretty good yourself.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[ziggy29]

Why isn't the Big Bang consistent with "let there be light"?

And in reality, when you look at the sequence of events chronicled in Genesis 1 -- the "light", the development of seas and dry ground, the coming of plants, then animals and finally humanity -- it comes rather close to the order of events in the development of the world and the universe as scientists view it today. Unless one firmly believes that Genesis 1 specifically uses the word "day" literally, as what we know as 24 Earth hours, the Scripture and the science aren't really far apart.

So as with many other things, it depends on one's interpretation of Scripture.

And frankly, I think the elegance and the laws of mathematics, physics and chemistry which shape the natural world are simply too elegant and (dare I say) "too perfect" to have occurred by random chance.

 

[mark kennedy]

What do you think of the same science that says the big bang happened, but also says that it happened billions of years ago? If I remember correctly you're a YEC, so to me it seems like your picking and choosing which science to accept. Or do you simply not accept cosmology and somehow get the 'big bang' from Genesis?

I honestly could care less how old the universe is. It's life on this planet that interests me and the science is actually producing the crude evidence of our history. I don't know what the dinosaurs were but I'm quite certain they are versions of what exists today, they just don't have enough time, resources or alleles to become what they were in the antediluvian (before the flood) period.

Getting more to the point, the arguments against creationism are fatally flawed since they never allow for God as a cause. The book of Genesis relates the true history of our human family and universe. 'In the Beginning' is an absolute and compromise with these secular philosophies is impossible because they have assumed purely naturalistic causes.

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' 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. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. With respect to the means of modification, he attributed something to the direct action of the physical conditions of life, something to the crossing of already existing forms, and much to use and disuse, that is, to the effects of habit. To this latter agency he seemed to attribute all the beautiful adaptations in nature; — such as the long neck of the giraffe for browsing on the branches of trees. But he likewise believed in a law of progressive development; and as all the forms of life thus tend to progress, in order to account for the existence at the present day of simple productions, he maintains that such forms are now spontaneously generated. (Preface to On the Origin of Species)​

Forgive the length of the quote and kindly consider the bolded part. This is not a scientific topic, it's a philosophical one. The true test of Theistic Evolution is whether or not it can maintain a Christian Apologetic view point while defending this misguided philosophy. 6 years of debate with these people has indicated to me that they have no interest in defending the Christian faith, they intend only to undermining the belief in God's work in creation and would seem to have no real interest in the fact that they are claiming to be part of a religion that can only be described as miraculous.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[callmeMurph]

being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.

Forgive the length of the quote and kindly consider the bolded part. This is not a scientific topic, it's a philosophical one. The true test of Theistic Evolution is whether or not it can maintain a Christian Apologetic view point while defending this misguided philosophy.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I don't think people who believe in Theistic Evolution, or Evolutionary Creation (as I like to call it), need to defend that "misguided philosophy". The conclusion that life is the result of law and not miraculous interposition is missing a crucial piece... The belief that life is the result of God's general providence that can be observed in the form of natural law.

 

[Darkness27]

Why isn't the Big Bang consistent with "let there be light"?

If we really want to go after specifics, I could say it is incorrect as the universe was opaque for the first few hundred million years. Personally, I see no conflict with interpreting Gen. 1:3 as the 'big bang' if you want to combine science and Genesis; I myself choose not too.

And in reality, when you look at the sequence of events chronicled in Genesis 1 -- the "light", the development of seas and dry ground, the coming of plants, then animals and finally humanity -- it comes rather close to the order of events in the development of the world and the universe as scientists view it today. Unless one firmly believes that Genesis 1 specifically uses the word "day" literally, as what we know as 24 Earth hours, the Scripture and the science aren't really far apart.

I actually don't think it is a good sequence. In Genesis God creates (land) vegetation before sea life, and birds along with the sea life before he creates land animals (which birds evolved from in ToE). I happen to think "yom" in Genesis is a literal day, but I also like to keep my theology and science separate when at all possible.

And frankly, I think the elegance and the laws of mathematics, physics and chemistry which shape the natural world are simply too elegant and (dare I say) "too perfect" to have occurred by random chance.

 

[Darkness27]

Getting more to the point, the arguments against creationism are fatally flawed since they never allow for God as a cause. The book of Genesis relates the true history of our human family and universe. 'In the Beginning' is an absolute and compromise with these secular philosophies is impossible because they have assumed purely naturalistic causes.

I think the argument from a philosophical viewpoint is that God set up the laws of nature to be discernible and understood by man (the philosophical background to science from a theological perspective). Thus when we conclude with our God given senses and reason basic principles in the properties of life, chemistry, physics, geology etc, we are learning how the actual physical universe operates. Now it is one thing for God to hide, or make ambiguous, to the history of the world through tangible evidence, but it is another when the vast majority (if not all) the evidence points to a single conclusion. If we believe that God is not the author of confusion, then such evidence cannot be antithetical to the truth, divine intervention or not.

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.

Forgive the length of the quote and kindly consider the bolded part. This is not a scientific topic, it's a philosophical one. The true test of Theistic Evolution is whether or not it can maintain a Christian Apologetic view point while defending this misguided philosophy.

I think this hits on a very important issue; What is science and how it relates to theism. I agree completely that science purposefully ignores everything to do with the supernatural. Science can be seen as the study of the natural universe with giving no thought to that which is supernatural. I also think it is important to distinguish between methodological and philosophical naturalism. There is nothing in science that says that the supernatural doesn't exist, or even interferes with natural law, only that science (as a discipline/methodology) will not take the supernatural into consideration. Evolution doesn't have a philosophical naturalistic axiom, but a methodological one. Therefore accepting evolution doesn't force you to accept that all is done via natural law without miraculous interposition. Such is up for the individual to decide for themselves. Evolution doesn't say that there is no God, or Jesus, nor even that the death and resurrection is impossible.

6 years of debate with these people has indicated to me that they have no interest in defending the Christian faith, they intend only to undermining the belief in God's work in creation and would seem to have no real interest in the fact that they are claiming to be part of a religion that can only be described as miraculous.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I think many TEs are willing to defend the faith. If not, I'd venture a guess and say they would become atheist. I'm not aware of TEs trying to undermine God's work, we just view how God created the diversity of life differently. And of course, there are slight variations among TEs as well when it comes to evolution.

Peace.

 

[rcorlew]

I think the argument from a philosophical viewpoint is that God set up the laws of nature to be discernible and understood by man (the philosophical background to science from a theological perspective). Thus when we conclude with our God given senses and reason basic principles in the properties of life, chemistry, physics, geology etc, we are learning how the actual physical universe operates. Now it is one thing for God to hide, or make ambiguous, to the history of the world through tangible evidence, but it is another when the vast majority (if not all) the evidence points to a single conclusion. If we believe that God is not the author of confusion, then such evidence cannot be antithetical to the truth, divine intervention or not.I think this hits on a very important issue; What is science and how it relates to theism. I agree completely that science purposefully ignores everything to do with the supernatural. Science can be seen as the study of the natural universe with giving no thought to that which is supernatural. I also think it is important to distinguish between methodological and philosophical naturalism. There is nothing in science that says that the supernatural doesn't exist, or even interferes with natural law, only that science (as a discipline/methodology) will not take the supernatural into consideration. Evolution doesn't have a philosophical naturalistic axiom, but a methodological one. Therefore accepting evolution doesn't force you to accept that all is done via natural law without miraculous interposition. Such is up for the individual to decide for themselves. Evolution doesn't say that there is no God, or Jesus, nor even that the death and resurrection is impossible.

I think many TEs are willing to defend the faith. If not, I'd venture a guess and say they would become atheist. I'm not aware of TEs trying to undermine God's work, we just view how God created the diversity of life differently. And of course, there are slight variations among TEs as well when it comes to evolution.

Peace.

Your post merely proves my point in duality of positions. Read the bolded part of the post, the problem with science is not that ignores the supernatural, it rules it out, not because it is unobservable, but because it is unrepeatable (we as Christians know this is not true, the supernatural does occur as evidenced by your post).

I think that callmeMurph is absolutely correct

I don't think people who believe in Theistic Evolution, or Evolutionary Creation (as I like to call it), need to defend that "misguided philosophy". The conclusion that life is the result of law and not miraculous interposition is missing a crucial piece... The belief that life is the result of God's general providence that can be observed in the form of natural law.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think the argument from a philosophical viewpoint is that God set up the laws of nature to be discernible and understood by man (the philosophical background to science from a theological perspective). Thus when we conclude with our God given senses and reason basic principles in the properties of life, chemistry, physics, geology etc, we are learning how the actual physical universe operates. Now it is one thing for God to hide, or make ambiguous, to the history of the world through tangible evidence, but it is another when the vast majority (if not all) the evidence points to a single conclusion. If we believe that God is not the author of confusion, then such evidence cannot be antithetical to the truth, divine intervention or not

God does not hide or make ambiguous His intervention into human history, he has revealed it through holy men of God who spoke as they were moved by the Spirit. Granted it is not a complete history but it is a straightforward statement of historical fact that Adam was created. This is confirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms and while I see real merit in your discussion there I must draw the line at human lineage.

I don't just study the Bible, I also read the scientific literature on the fossils and genomic comparisons. Philosophical naturalism has no more right to be the definition of science then the Bible has for being a science. While science and theology sometimes overlap they are two disciplines looking in opposite directions.

I think this hits on a very important issue; What is science and how it relates to theism. I agree completely that science purposefully ignores everything to do with the supernatural. Science can be seen as the study of the natural universe with giving no thought to that which is supernatural. I also think it is important to distinguish between methodological and philosophical naturalism. There is nothing in science that says that the supernatural doesn't exist, or even interferes with natural law, only that science (as a discipline/methodology) will not take the supernatural into consideration. Evolution doesn't have a philosophical naturalistic axiom, but a methodological one. Therefore accepting evolution doesn't force you to accept that all is done via natural law without miraculous interposition. Such is up for the individual to decide for themselves. Evolution doesn't say that there is no God, or Jesus, nor even that the death and resurrection is impossible.

There is no philosophical or naturalistic axiom in science but there is an evident and obvious one in Darwinism. The a priori assumption of universal common descent has become the substantive principle that transcends all living systems, particularly with regards to origins and natural history. This is called a presupposition by some Christian Apologists and it's an assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes. What leads me to conclude that is that the possibility of God acting in time and space is never considered, historicity being the fulcrum issue.

I think many TEs are willing to defend the faith. If not, I'd venture a guess and say they would become atheist. I'm not aware of TEs trying to undermine God's work, we just view how God created the diversity of life differently. And of course, there are slight variations among TEs as well when it comes to evolution.

Peace.

I've never seen one do that and I've talked to a lot of them. What I see them do is join the chorus of secular voices singing the same song as worldly academics. If you conclude that the Scriptures are somehow mistaken or misunderstood and satisfied that TOE sufficiently explains the origin and development of life, go in peace, I have no quarrel with you. If on the other hand you intend to tell me that the philosophy being defended with apologetic zeal by TEs is Christian I must disagree, to put it mildly. Theistic evolution serves no real purpose on these boards except to confront and criticize Biblical creationism.

It would be different if not for the fact that they have been so consistent about attacking Bible believing Christians while marching in lock step order with Darwinians.

Grace and peace,
Mark