Evolution and Heaven?

[metherion]

I was going to finish writing and posting my definitions now that MK has posted his, and where his and mine are in agreement, different, and so on. But I just had dinner and feel like someone has pulled my power plug, as it were. I'll do so tomorrow. Just letting you know that even though the next post won't be coming as rapid fire as the others, it will be forthcoming.

Ta ta.

Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

I was going to finish writing and posting my definitions now that MK has posted his, and where his and mine are in agreement, different, and so on. But I just had dinner and feel like someone has pulled my power plug, as it were. I'll do so tomorrow. Just letting you know that even though the next post won't be coming as rapid fire as the others, it will be forthcoming.

Ta ta.

Metherion

That's great news, I'll be looking forward to it. Take your time, this topic isn't going any any time soon.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[juvenissun]

I appreciate your optimism, I have to remain a little skeptical. It looks like an attack on the credibility of Scripture to me, implying that the virgin birth is contrived from pagan sources. This is a very common criticism of the Old Testament and only occasionally are such criticisms attempted for the New Testament.

Grace and peace,
Mark

It is an attack. But it is a stupid one and only transfers the question. Why would any human being (pagan or not) want to make up this kind of story? Why is a virgin birth any better than a normal birth? What is the purpose for the virgin birth?

See, these questions have the best answers ONLY from the Bible.

 

[mark kennedy]

It is an attack. But it is a stupid one and only transfers the question. Why would any human being (pagan or not) want to make up this kind of story? Why is a virgin birth any better than a normal birth? What is the purpose for the virgin birth?

See, these questions have the best answers ONLY from the Bible.

Agreed, it could account for why academics avoid the New Testament. There have been a lot of attempts to discredit the New Testament but they are pretty weak rationalizations. Had one guy actually challenge me to a formal debate on the Gospel being a retelling of a popular Mediterranean myth. I was anxious to take him up on the offer but he never showed for it. Pity, I could have had some fun with that one.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[metherion]

So, quotes included, it wound up being 23000 characters or so. So now, a long two part post!


Definitions!

Okay, now let’s get some of mine out of the way, as I said I would.

Science:
A systematic enterprise that uses and organizes knowledge in the form of testable predictions and conclusions about the universe. This uses 3 main assumptions:
1) Realism,
2) There exist natural laws which govern said shared reality,
3) These natural laws may be discovered by systematic observation and experimentation.
Science uses methodological naturalism, and makes no reference to metaphysics in any way, shape, or form. Natural phenomena are interobjective, while supernatural phenomena are not, therefore science can take no position on them.

I disagree with the following parts of Mark’s definition:

A directly observed or demonstrated truth reduced to cause and effect relationships.

I disagree with this because finding ways to directly observe or demonstrate something (such as research into string theory) as well as the process of observing or demonstrating or analyzing in an attempt to reduce things to cause and effect are also considered science.

This approach to knowledge demands a unified theory accounting for the data set in a logical profession from facts, hypothesis, testing, theory and finally a law.

A scientific law is not a step above a scientific theory in any sort of logical progression. A law is a statement based on repeated experimentation that describes some particular single aspect of the world, which expresses a definite cause and effect relationship, and which always applies under the given conditions (and is almost always in the form of an equation). A theory is an well-substantiated explanation for a large set of available facts that provides a framework which ties them all together, that posit a mechanism and/or explanation for phenomena that have been confirmed by experimentation and observation. Theories do not become laws, laws do not become theories.

I tentatively disagree with this statement:

The objective being a practical application of the theory

Sometimes the phenomena need to be understood and explained before practical applications can proceed. Therefore, I either a) disagree with this definition or b) add ‘including understanding of a phenomena so that applications may then be found’.



Creation: The act of God making something. I dispute, in Mark’s definition, that the writer of Genesis is using scientifically precise language, and I also dispute that it must be from previously nonexistent material, i.e. nothing.

To Mark’s definition of knowledge I would add that in addition to the familiarity with facts, information, description, et cetera, the facts, information, descriptions etc. THEMSELVES also count as knowledge.

I agree entirely with Mark’s definition of Heaven and the Incarnation, and faith.

Evolution: The Neo-Darwinian modern synthesis in modern biology and all that it entails.


By the way, I’m a he, not a she.

The subject of the thread is not me, the subject is whether or not you can believe in evolution and still go to heaven. The question is not as cut and dried as it might seem. My initial reaction is of course you can, but only if you do not reject God's ability to act by divine fiat.

Well, as I explained earlier, a rejection of God’s ability to create by divine fiat is not necessary to accept either you definition nor my definition of evolution.

The scientific definition of evolution is perfectly consistent with young earth creationism.

Not really. One of the consequences of defining evolution as ‘the change in alleles in populations over time’ is the ramifications of those changes going BACK in time. The evidence contradicts both a young earth and separate creation of kinds, both on the timescale over which they happened and the existence of intermediate ancestors between kinds.

The problem is with Darwinian evolution that assumes exclusively naturalistic causes throughout natural history to the exclusion of an 'miraculous interpolation' or God acting by divine fiat:

So, since you define ‘darwinian’ to be pretty much ‘metaphysically naturalistic’, I’m going to swap to the term, as I’m pretty sure YOUR definition of ‘Darwinian’ is just about identical to ‘metaphysically naturalistic’. Of course, I would agree with this. I would ALSO add that no actual science is Darwinian, as science uses METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, not metaphysical. If an outright miracle were to occur, what would be seen in science is not some glossing over with fake natural terms, but a bunch of ‘Well, I have no clue how that happened naturally’ headscratches. Furthermore, acts of divine fiat would lead to a lack of certain things, such as a lack of intermediates, a lack of anything back beyond a certain point, and a whole lot of fossils of all these ‘kind’ ancestors that perished in the Great Flood BEFORE all the ones that survived on the Ark speciated.

The book has been described as one long argument against creation which is clearly what the book was written to be.

The book was intended to be Darwin’s personal observations, thoughts, and accumulated evidence of natural selection as a means of evolution, as opposed to, say, Lamarckian evolution (in which the traits passed down are physical ones, such as giraffes gaining long necks because their ancestors stretched their necks quite far to reach leaves).

Evolution is not contrary to creation and certainly not assigning causes to natural law that are rightly attributed to God.

Actually, since you defined creation as God making things out of nothing by divine fiat, unless you are saying that every single mutation and sexual combination are supernatural miracles, it is contrary to creation. The change in alleles in a population requires existing alleles and an existing population, both of which contradict your definition of creation. THAT IS, unless I’m misunderstanding and you mean ‘creation’ as only being at that first instant in time when the universe was made. Furthermore, mutations, sexual recombination of genes, expression of alleles, and so on are all part of biology, which does work according to natural law.

The fact is that a scientific investigation is limited to phenomenon that can be directly observed and demonstrated.
Science does not make inferences into the totality of life emerging from natural law without miraculous interpolation. It is a discipline that is limited to natural phenomenon so when it comes to God acting in time and space by divine fiat science must remain silent or neutral.

However, you realize that by being neutral, science and scientists cannot say ‘Well, all investigation into phenomena X, Y, and Z must be suspended because P, Q, and R religions have holy books which talk about them, let’s go find some other mysteries of the universe to delve into.’, do you not? As science is limited to natural phenomena, it must investigate things AS natural phenomena, as opposed to refraining from all investigation. One may certainly believe something happened a different way, miraculously, but then one would also have to believe all physical evidence that exists around the scientific, natural investigation of said phenomena is false, which raises its own theological problems. All creation certainly can’t testify to the glory of God if parts of it are required to be ignored to give God glory.

Clearly, in the endless debates surrounding the creation/evolution controversy God as a cause of anything is categorically rejected.

Only for the metaphysical naturalists. As far as the folks on this board, TEs or Evolutionary Creationists, or whatever name you wish to apply, the question is not ‘Can God do X, Y, or Z?’, the question is ‘DID God do X,Y, or Z, all of which He is perfectly capable of doing?’

The reason for this is not scientific, the reason is philosophical. Nowhere is science ever required to determine exclusively naturalistic causes, if a cause and effect relationship in a phenomenon cannot be determined it is regarded as an anomaly.

Actually, according to your definition AND mine, it is. Only natural events can fall under the ‘testing’ part of your definition here:

This approach to knowledge demands a unified theory accounting for the data set in a logical profession from facts, hypothesis, testing, theory and finally a law.

As supernatural events cannot be tested. An untestable event, such as a miracle cannot fit into that. Needless to say, science in practice is carried about according to methodological naturalism.

This has been the case since Science was redefined inductively during the Scientific Revolution. Before that Science was regarded as any body of work determining knowledge as a justified belief.

Yes, but at that time, the studies of what would today become chemistry, biology, geology, et cetera, were known as ‘natural philosophy’ and its practitioners were know as ‘naturalists’. Definitions change over time.

Theology at this time was regarded as the 'Queen of the sciences' but with the advent of inductive scientific methodology Theology lost it's status as a science, principally because it is deduced from first principles that cannot be determined by naturalistic means.

Which fits with your definition of science needing to include testing in its progression.

That doesn't mean it isn't true or God acting in time and space to create by divine fiat is no long an acceptable explanation for life. That is, unless you make the a priori assumption that there is nothing beyond the material elemental phenomenon of the created universe.

Law of the excluded middle. It is certainly an acceptable explanation if one believes God would not make His divine fiats look exactly like actions of natural law extending back into the past, making them indistinguishable. It WOULD BE an acceptable explanation, if there were signs that it happened.

That's what the whole controversy revolves around, whether or not God can be the cause of life, being created fully formed, by divine fiat.

Perhaps if you’re railing against atheists. None who post here are.

Here is Newton's concept of investigating natural phenomenon.
Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

And HERE is where this shoots you in the foot. Say you’re talking to an atheists. If established and known natural law are able to account for a phenomenon, according to rule 1, we are not to admit God as a cause. Period. End of story.

-------- break here simply because it's a page break in my word processor-------

Metherion

 

[metherion]

CONTINUATION!

Clearly a miracle would be an exception to something happening as the result of a phenomenon acting as the result of natural law as the cause. It is also clear that Newton is reducing this manner of investigation to cause and effect relationships.

TILL SUCH TIME AS OTHER PHENOMENA OCCUR. Believing something that can naturally happen happened as a miracle at some point in the past would violate rule #1. Since it was completely unobserved, it would also violate rule #4. A belief that it could not happen except by divine fiat and thus God is needed in rule #1 is God of the Gaps.

What we are seeing in these debates is an abandonment of the very principles Newton articulated to a rejection of anything supernatural.

Not true. What we are seeing is a diminishment of gaps to shove God and miracles into, and an acknowledgement that only natural phenomena may be tested.

You would expect this from an atheistic materialist but a Christian is by definition a Creationist.

Then a definition for creationist is needed. There are T.E.s, aka Evolutionary Creationists, Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, Day-Age Creationists, Gap Theorists, and so on.

That means simply that in order to be 'saved' a miracle is required, in fact a series of miracles throughout redemptive history culminating in hearing the Gospel, receiving the Holy Spirit of promise and being created a new creature in Christ.

This is correct, but someone being saved while still on earth is not testable, nor is the afterlife itself, nor is actually being born again, because they are not natural phenomena. They fail BOTH of our definitions of science. Being ‘saved’ is not a scientific event.

In answer to the question of the OP. Yes of course you can believe in evolution and still go to heaven. That is providing the same miracle that happened at creation happens to you as a result of believing the Gospel.

Just checking, but you do mean ‘regardless of whether one believes that creation was 6000 years ago or closer to 16 billion years ago’, correct?

I have gone on record as saying the Darwinism is metaphysics. That leads me to another definition that is essential to understanding the difference between Darwinian evolution and the scientific definition from the genuine article of science

The thing is, the way you have defined Darwinism is pretty much the exact same definition as ‘metaphysical naturalism’, so of COURSE it would be, that’s what happens when two terms share a definition.

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

Provided that those biosystems are made up of imperfect replicators, you forgot that part. See, the space on a surface of a planet is not infinite, so resources cannot be infinite. Darwin-type natural selection applies where there are both imperfect replicators and finite resources, and can be done in computer programming easily. Saying that evolution would happened in another biosphere provided it has finite resources and imperfect replicators is no more transcendent than saying the planets on which other biospheres would arise have gravity due to having mass! A biosphere made up of PERFECT replicators would NOT undergo natural selection.

Here is a prime example of what I'm talking about and one of the primary reasons Creationists cannot effectively argue their position. Creationists know what their position is but Darwinism has replaced 'God' with 'natural law', evolution as a scientific definition is blended with a metaphysical one and will never admit it. The devil does not offer you a bottle of poison, he poisons a steak and invites you to dinner:

No, it is NOT a metaphysical definition. Evolution as science uses METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, not METAPHYSICAL, no matter the amount of assertions made. They are still incorrect assertions.

Karl Popper famously regarded the theory of natural selection as a ‘metaphysical research program’

Which is a WELL KNOWN quote mine, debunked by the man himself as an misunderstanding as well as only applying to natural selection, not evolution. The same man ALSO stated:

And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that. (Popper 1976, 171-172), Popper, Karl. 1976. Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.

Science is terrible at metaphysics because science as it has come to be defined is inductive. Inductive reasoning takes a small subset of a group and uses it to make inferences of the whole set.

Actually, it’s terrible at metaphysics because it never claims to explore them.

This causes major problems when you go from very small things in Physics to very large things in Cosmology. The result is something like String Theory that attempt to resolve the seeming contradictions, in an attempt at a unified theory. Einstein was working on a unified theory of physics on his death bed and the Stephen Hawking, the Lucasian professor of mathematics in the University of Cambridge attempted a unified theory of physics, both failed.

Actually, the difference is not between classical physics and LARGE things like cosmology, but between classical physics and SMALL things like quantum mechanics. It’s not because of inductive reasoning and metaphysics, it’s because classical rules break down on the quantum scale, and vice versa. It is neither here nor there regarding metaphysics.

Change, actually a synonym for evolution, being the result of natural law and not miraculous interposition. The scientific (inductive) definition of evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. Darwin and Darwinism adds the cause as natural law as opposed to miraculous interposition.

Actually, according to both definitions of science, it is the only acceptable thing, as well as by Newton’s rule number 1. Natural law is sufficient to explain it and true (as it has been observed occurring naturally), therefore we are to admit that cause and no others. Supernatural causes cannot be tested, so your definition of science throws it out, and supernatural causes are not methodological naturalism, so my definition of science throws it out. None of those make it metaphysics.

That is transcendence in no uncertain terms,

No, it isn’t. It is a demand brought on by testing that explicitly does not make metaphysical claims, as that is methodological naturalism.

Popper was right but he was beat down so bad by the predominantly atheistic and agnostic world that he had to recant.

That is a bold claim. Provide evidence that the only reason he ‘recanted’ was because he was ‘beat down’.
I would provide this quote:

I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.

Which comes from this page:
Karl Popper: On the Scientific Status of Darwin's theory of Evolution - Mert Sahinoglu
which comes from this:
From "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355

It reminds me of Galileo having to recant after the inquisition except Galileo's position can be confirmed through a telescope. There is no telescope that can look into history.

Are you really bringing in the ‘nothing in the past can be tested’ argument? That leads nowhere but Omphalos.

Danial Dennet calls Darwinism 'universal acid' that eats through everything.

And who is he, and why should I care?

That is a apt description for a transcendent principle that is contrary to common understanding. Most people infer some kind of a Creator or Designer for the universe in general and life in particular, that is always been understood in Western thought to be God.

And? Argumentum ad populum doesn’t prove anything true.

The Darwinian replaces that inference with 'natural law' as an a priori (without prior) natural assumption.

No, it doesn’t. You even quoted yourself how it was a conclusion of Lamarck based on known natural laws of that time, and your Newtonian concept list itself shoots you in the foot at point #1.

That is why all the evidence points to evolution, the transcendence of the a priori assumption comes before the empirical evidence so when the evidence is examined it's all organized around their naturalistic assumptions, aka natural selection. God as cause of anything, going all the way back to the Big Bang is categorically rejected.

No, actually, that’s a combination of evidence and methodological (not metaphysical) naturalism.

There is a reason evolutionists are so hostile to Creationism, it's the same reason that the Nicene Creed begins with a confession of Creation as a definition of Christian profession.

Again, we need a legitimate definition of Creationist here, to differentiate TE from YEC from OEC from Day-Age from Gap Theorist from...

The concepts, naturalism and creationism, are transcendent, in that, they transcend all the substantive elements that follow

No, they’re not, especially because there is no metaphysical naturalism in science. It’s methodological. This is just another assertion.

Why do you think evolutionists never want to discuss the incarnation, resurrection, messianic prophecy or the internal, external and bibliographical tests of the credibility of Scripture?

Because this is the ORIGINS theology sub-board, so the TEs here are more interested in other points, and atheistic evolutionists don’t believe in them in the first place? There are other theology sub-boards for most of those. Internal/external/bibliographic tests would most likely be in the Christian Scriptures board, while the Incarnation/Resurrection pair and Messianic prophecies would likely be in theSoteriology and Paterology, Christology & Pneumatology sub boards. If I were inclined to discuss those, I’d discuss them there. Saying nobody wants to talk about them here is like saying nobody wants to discuss paint-matching for your house at the contractor who is about to do your electric wiring.

They need not bother, by defining transcendence as naturalistic all reality is permeated with this one inference. In liberal theology they even change the meaning of the word God, to the 'god above god' (Paul Tillich), effectively putting their philosophy into theological terms rendering Christianity atheistic.

Uh huh. And so where have WE done so?

Metherion

 

[philadiddle]

Well my prediction that all that can be expected are ad hominem attacks was confirmed in this post by philadiddle but I'm rather surprised that it came in the form of a false accusation. I told him that the first sentence in the definition was my own attempt at a concise definition. The rest came from a lengthy treatment of the word 'bara' from Vine's Expository Dictionary. While the excerpt was painfully brief it was none the less a legitimate source.

I said "Maybe there is another article in Vine's you are using" and you were. Your original reference wasn't very clear and obviously I made a mistake and found what I thought you were using as a reference. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I do disagree with the definition that Vine's gives, but I'm not at home and I don't have any of my sources handy here, so I'll have to come back to it. I just wanted to put this up to apologize.

 

[mark kennedy]

Science:
A systematic enterprise that uses and organizes knowledge in the form of testable predictions and conclusions about the universe. This uses 3 main assumptions:
1) Realism,
2) There exist natural laws which govern said shared reality,
3) These natural laws may be discovered by systematic observation and experimentation.

I would agree with the first part if it included hypothesis and laws of science and exceptions the way Newton's did. It also begs the question of what science was before experimentation because the ancient Greeks who had many great scientists frowned on experimentation. These assumptions include the empirical methodology (3) but you have defined science with a random word without explanation 'Realism' with a capitol 'R' indicating a proper name. The definition was interesting because it metaphysical in it's assumptions:

Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make reliable claims about unobservables (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as observables, as opposed to instrumentalism. (Scientific Realism)​

It gets better:

The entities described by the scientific theory exist objectively and mind-independently. This is the metaphysical commitment of scientific realism.​

What is really interesting is that the the epistemological commitment simply refers back to the metaphysical (ontological) one. Then you make this bizarre statement after making Realism a crucial part of you definition:

Science uses methodological naturalism, and makes no reference to metaphysics in any way, shape, or form.

What is the problem with the Oxford Definition of science:

"a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." (Scientific method)

Natural phenomena are interobjective, while supernatural phenomena are not, therefore science can take no position on them.

You have used the term without defining it, just like you throw Realism out there without defining it so I had to look it up as well:

interobjective - Pertaining to the exterior of a collective, or the Lower-Right quadrant. Examples of interobjective phenomena include the interaction of two or more organisms, technoeconomic systems, ecological systems, geopolitical distinctions, systems of signifiers, etc.​

So since the supernatural does not interact with the natural world is all I can figure from this obscure terminology.

I disagree with the following parts of Mark’s definition:

A directly observed or demonstrated truth reduced to cause and effect relationships.

I disagree with this because finding ways to directly observe or demonstrate something (such as research into string theory) as well as the process of observing or demonstrating or analyzing in an attempt to reduce things to cause and effect are also considered science.

String theory is metaphysics, why would it be considered science?

A scientific law is not a step above a scientific theory in any sort of logical progression. A law is a statement based on repeated experimentation that describes some particular single aspect of the world, which expresses a definite cause and effect relationship, and which always applies under the given conditions (and is almost always in the form of an equation). A theory is an well-substantiated explanation for a large set of available facts that provides a framework which ties them all together, that posit a mechanism and/or explanation for phenomena that have been confirmed by experimentation and observation. Theories do not become laws, laws do not become theories.

Theories unify facts, laws are universal in their scope. An experiment is based on a testable hypothesis, true or false kind of logic. When the crucial experiment or a preponderance of the hypothesis the set is said to become a valid theory. A law of science like Mendel's Laws of Inheritance are considered universal because they allow for the rarest of exceptions.

Creation: The act of God making something. I dispute, in Mark’s definition, that the writer of Genesis is using scientifically precise language, and I also dispute that it must be from previously nonexistent material, i.e. nothing.

Your not disputing me, you are disputing Vine, Unger and White.

To Mark’s definition of knowledge I would add that in addition to the familiarity with facts, information, description, et cetera, the facts, information, descriptions etc. THEMSELVES also count as knowledge.

Interesting, I see no real problem with that.

I agree entirely with Mark’s definition of Heaven and the Incarnation, and faith.

Good

Evolution: The Neo-Darwinian modern synthesis in modern biology and all that it entails.

Which is Darwinism, which is transcendent, which is based on an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes and a categorical rejection of miraculous interpolation (aka special creation). Which is metaphysics, which is by your own definition not scientific.

By the way, I’m a he, not a she.

My bad!

Well, as I explained earlier, a rejection of God’s ability to create by divine fiat is not necessary to accept either you definition nor my definition of evolution.

There are those who would disagree:

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, for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or a redwood tree in one step (Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial: the Case for Evolution)​

Evolution in the Darwinian sense and Creation in the Biblical sense are mutually exclusive. That need not be included in the scientific definition of evolution unless you include the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism.

Not really. One of the consequences of defining evolution as ‘the change in alleles in populations over time’ is the ramifications of those changes going BACK in time. The evidence contradicts both a young earth and separate creation of kinds, both on the timescale over which they happened and the existence of intermediate ancestors between kinds.

The definition is 100% consistent with a Darwinian timescale or a young earth timescale. The change of alleles (traits) are simply changes regardless of the timescale which is the only real difference between Darwinism and Creationism except for the inference or rejection of the Creator.

So, since you define ‘darwinian’ to be pretty much ‘metaphysically naturalistic’, I’m going to swap to the term, as I’m pretty sure YOUR definition of ‘Darwinian’ is just about identical to ‘metaphysically naturalistic’.

I wholeheartedly agree!

Of course, I would agree with this. I would ALSO add that no actual science is Darwinian, as science uses METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, not metaphysical.

You have defined science in metaphysical terms, Realism (I assume you mean scientific realism) and Darwinism which is a universal a priori assumption of naturalistic causes. I found this definition:

Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. The genesis of nature, e.g., by an act of God, is not addressed.​

Darwinism does no such thing, the genesis of nature by an act of God is specifically addressed as a categorical rejection.

Actually, since you defined creation as God making things out of nothing by divine fiat,

I define 'creation' based on the Genesis account that uses 'bara' to describe creation at this level. It is used only three times in the original creation and I will leave you to your own devices to realize how that meaning is different from the other creative acts of God during creation week and in your salvation.

Aside from the obvious differences in the definitions, particularly with regards to science and evolution, this post has been a pleasure to respond to. I had to edit out parts of the original post to get to the main points. What is so nice about this post is that none of the essential doctrines are touched, with the exception of creation which we can get into down the road.

Looking forward to the rest of it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I said "Maybe there is another article in Vine's you are using" and you were. Your original reference wasn't very clear and obviously I made a mistake and found what I thought you were using as a reference. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I do disagree with the definition that Vine's gives, but I'm not at home and I don't have any of my sources handy here, so I'll have to come back to it. I just wanted to put this up to apologize.

No apology was really necessary, it was an obvious misunderstanding. I just didn't like being accused of making it up before I had a chance to clarify is all. I should have cited the quote better but honestly didn't think it would be an issue and I was trying to get it all in one post.

Take your time getting back to me on this one, I suspect we are going to be here for a while.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[philadiddle]

No apology was really necessary, it was an obvious misunderstanding. I just didn't like being accused of making it up before I had a chance to clarify is all. I should have cited the quote better but honestly didn't think it would be an issue and I was trying to get it all in one post.

Take your time getting back to me on this one, I suspect we are going to be here for a while.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I'll get some more info together to make a more thorough case and start a thread just on the word bara'.

 

[mark kennedy]

TILL SUCH TIME AS OTHER PHENOMENA OCCUR. Believing something that can naturally happen happened as a miracle at some point in the past would violate rule #1. Since it was completely unobserved, it would also violate rule #4. A belief that it could not happen except by divine fiat and thus God is needed in rule #1 is God of the Gaps.

Not completely unobserved, God was there. Look, I realize that revelation is very different from a scientific investigation of a natural phenomenon. But the creation of the universe (Cosmos if you prefer), life on earth and the soul of man does not fall under the umbrella of natural science. If we are defining science in terms of methodological naturalism then at the point of creation or any miracle science must stop, not demand a naturalistic explanation.

Not true. What we are seeing is a diminishment of gaps to shove God and miracles into, and an acknowledgement that only natural phenomena may be tested.

I don't subscribe to any God of the Gaps nonsense, I don't even care to know what that is. The testimony of Scripture did not float down from heaven like manna in the dessert. It was confirmed by signs, miracle and mighty judgements. All Scripture is confirmed by God who does things only God can do to confirm the Word that is going out. Heck, half the time the prophets and apostles didn't believe what was being promised, sometimes even when it happened. I have in mind the resurrection here.

My point is simply that there are limits to methodological naturalism and the testimony of Scripture is evidenced even if it's not empirically testable. Just because it cannot be reduced to a testable hypothesis does not mean it did not happen and I'm far more concerned with boundaries here then semantics.

Then a definition for creationist is needed. There are T.E.s, aka Evolutionary Creationists, Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, Day-Age Creationists, Gap Theorists, and so on.

Those views are self referential, the groups represented are autonomous with regards to what they believe. However, Creation in the Biblical sense is represented by no less then three distinct words, the most controversial being 'bara'. All the Lexicon definitions of 'bara' discuss the other creative acts of God. Creation is simply God making something according to the dictates of His perfect will as an exercise of His power.

God does not just manipulate nature nor is he subject to nature, God is, in fact, utterly independent of Creation while exercising the power to control nature in all it's forms and functions. Creation is an act of God, it stems from His divine attributes and eternal nature.

What is predicated in a view of creation defines that view. Honestly, I don't think I really fit into one of those categories as much as I would like to. I believe the earth and the universe was created billions of years ago. However, the earth was uninhabited and uninhabitable prior to creation week some 6 to 8 thousand years ago.

This is correct, but someone being saved while still on earth is not testable, nor is the afterlife itself, nor is actually being born again, because they are not natural phenomena. They fail BOTH of our definitions of science. Being ‘saved’ is not a scientific event.

Amen! It most certainly is not testable, but it is discernible spiritually. Personally through the testimony of the Spirit that we are the children of God and externally by the profession of faith and manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit. We are in agreement, conversion is spiritually discerned and well beyond the reach of methodological naturalism.

Just checking, but you do mean ‘regardless of whether one believes that creation was 6000 years ago or closer to 16 billion years ago’, correct?

Yes, obviously I have based my opinions on the New Testament witness and a firm reliance of the historicity of the Old Testament but even if you believe in the Darwinian evolution of life and universal common descent to be a Christian you must be a Creationist. The incarnation and new birth being my principle reasons for insisting on that.

The thing is, the way you have defined Darwinism is pretty much the exact same definition as ‘metaphysical naturalism’, so of COURSE it would be, that’s what happens when two terms share a definition.

I strongly disagree with that, Darwinism directly addresses special creation, it is in fact, one long argument against it. That is profoundly different from methodological naturalism.

Provided that those biosystems are made up of imperfect replicators, you forgot that part...

You seem to have overlooked the part where it applies to all life, even life that has not been discovered. That is an a priori assumption, not an empirically determined fact.

No, it is NOT a metaphysical definition. Evolution as science uses METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, not METAPHYSICAL, no matter the amount of assertions made. They are still incorrect assertions.

Yet you include metaphysics in your definitions, both with regards to Realism (assuming you mean Scientific Realism) and Darwinism which is clearly transcendent in it's scope.

Which is a WELL KNOWN quote mine, debunked by the man himself as an misunderstanding as well as only applying to natural selection, not evolution. The same man ALSO stated:

Popper did recant but only after being badgered into doing so. Personally, if there is an acceptable null hypothesis to Darwinism I have no problem with it. I certainly don't disagree that natural selection is a phenomenon in nature. All of which is purely academic, the real question is whether Darwinism is transcendent and precludes the empirical process or if it's just a direct observation or demonstration. Where it is the later it is not in conflict with creationism in any of it's forms. Where it is the former it's a categorical rejection in all of it's forms.

We are talking about two very different things here.

Actually, it’s terrible at metaphysics because it never claims to explore them.

String theory does, heck, most natural laws can be regarded as transcendent. For a philosophy of science to make claims regarding God's sovereign activities in the natural world is not methodological naturalism, it's not even close.

Actually, the difference is not between classical physics and LARGE things like cosmology, but between classical physics and SMALL things like quantum mechanics. It’s not because of inductive reasoning and metaphysics, it’s because classical rules break down on the quantum scale, and vice versa. It is neither here nor there regarding metaphysics.

That depends on what you consider metaphysics and clearly, String Theory is mean to be a theory of 'everything', all ontological theories are. I agree that methodological naturalism is oblivious by it's inherent discipline to metaphysical transcendence but disagree that Darwinism and String Theory wear those blinders.

Actually, according to both definitions of science, it is the only acceptable thing, as well as by Newton’s rule number 1. Natural law is sufficient to explain it and true (as it has been observed occurring naturally), therefore we are to admit that cause and no others. Supernatural causes cannot be tested, so your definition of science throws it out, and supernatural causes are not methodological naturalism, so my definition of science throws it out. None of those make it metaphysics.

Rule one covers a natural occurring phenomenon, rule 4 would address miracles in rule 4 as an exception, if scientific method can address miracles at all. The main thing to realize here is you are not to make any assumptions regarding the cause until it has been directly observed or demonstrated. With regards to creation the genuine article of science is silent or neutral but in Darwinism it is overtly hostile.

No, it isn’t. It is a demand brought on by testing that explicitly does not make metaphysical claims, as that is methodological naturalism.

Darwinism and Scientific Realism are both metaphysical and your right, their claims are not methodological naturalism.

That is a bold claim. Provide evidence that the only reason he ‘recanted’ was because he was ‘beat down’.

What Popper recanted of is calling natural selection 'survival of the fittest' and as such is untestable. It's irrelevant to the definition of evolution because he clearly makes that distinction. He never did change his mind about natural selection being metaphysics:

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. . . . I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme.(Popper, K. R. .1978. "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind." Dialectica)​

No, it doesn’t. You even quoted yourself how it was a conclusion of Lamarck based on known natural laws of that time, and your Newtonian concept list itself shoots you in the foot at point #1.

The Lamarck quote indicates a naturalist assumption at the heart of Darwinism and Newton's method of investigating naturally occurring phenomenon is limited to naturally occurring phenomenon. If you ever investigate a miracle you would address it as an exception.

You have mistaken rule 1 for a naturalistic assumption, that's a no no.

No, actually, that’s a combination of evidence and methodological (not metaphysical) naturalism.

I'm not talking about metaphysical naturalism, I'm talking about Darwinism and it's clearly metaphysical in nature.

Again, we need a legitimate definition of Creationist here, to differentiate TE from YEC from OEC from Day-Age from Gap Theorist from...

The definition I'm using is on record as being the word for creation used in Genesis 1, 'bara' and my definition is nearly identical to that of Vines. That is a legitimate definition, whether or not these groups fall under that category is within their power to determine, not mine.

No, they’re not, especially because there is no metaphysical naturalism in science. It’s methodological. This is just another assertion.

Darwinism is metaphysical, scientific realism is metaphysical and string theory is metaphysical but I agree, none of these philosophies are scientific.

That ought to do it, the problem here is not that you and I are in conflict. The problem is that your definitions for 'science' and 'evolution' are in conflict with themselves and each other. You can't define 'science' as methodological naturalism and scientific realism at the same time, that's equivocation. If you meant something else by 'Realism' I expect you will clear that up directly. I stand by the definition of 'evolution' in the scientific sense as the change of alleles in populations over time. Your objection that it does not take into account transitional is irrelevant, I see no reason to accept the neodarwinian synthesis as a valid definition because it's far to general.

By the way, Ernst Mayr coined the phrase even though he often expanded it to include various forms of natural selection. I never thought the working definition I used was complete but your discussion of the definition of evolution has not yielded a better one, or even a revised version. I remain unimpressed.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[metherion]

Before I address anything else, I would like clarification on one thing.

In post number 68, about 2/3rds of the way down the page, I say:
So, since you define ‘darwinian’ to be pretty much ‘metaphysically naturalistic’, I’m going to swap to the term, as I’m pretty sure YOUR definition of ‘Darwinian’ is just about identical to ‘metaphysically naturalistic’.
and you state:

I wholeheartedly agree!

Then, in the post above, #71, you quote me as having said:
The thing is, the way you have defined Darwinism is pretty much the exact same definition as ‘metaphysical naturalism’, so of COURSE it would be, that’s what happens when two terms share a definition.

and then you respond:

I strongly disagree with that,

... So, which is it? In one place you wholeheartedly agree, in one place you strongly disagree. I'd like that settled before I respond to the rest, as such a seemingly obvious contradiction between posts could confuse things quite a lot.

Metherion

Edit: I also THOUGHT I had defined realism, I'm sorry. Realism would be the assumption that all observers share a common reality. Interobjective is when an event in objectively the same, no matter who is viewing it. It is objective between viewers. Interobjective.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'll get some more info together to make a more thorough case and start a thread just on the word bara'.

I would suggest you expand the topic to include 'Creation' so that you are not limited to one word. If you noticed in the Vine's definition it contrasts the meaning with two other creative acts. It could also be expanded to include the word(s) for creation in the New Testament. That way there is plenty of room to explore creation as a hermeneutic principle and a topical discussion of creation without getting tied into one distinct definition, even though, 'bara' is clearly the most important one.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Before I address anything else, I would like clarification on one thing.

In post number 68, about 2/3rds of the way down the page, I say:
So, since you define ‘darwinian’ to be pretty much ‘metaphysically naturalistic’, I’m going to swap to the term, as I’m pretty sure YOUR definition of ‘Darwinian’ is just about identical to ‘metaphysically naturalistic’.

I disagree that Darwinism is methodological naturalism and I don't really know if it's identical to metaphysical naturalism. What I was agreeing with is that the genuine article of science is methodological naturalism, the concepts are nearly identical as far as I can tell.

Then, in the post above, #71, you quote me as having said:
The thing is, the way you have defined Darwinism is pretty much the exact same definition as ‘metaphysical naturalism’, so of COURSE it would be, that’s what happens when two terms share a definition.

That would depend on whether or not you include the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism.

... So, which is it? In one place you wholeheartedly agree, in one place you strongly disagree. I'd like that settled before I respond to the rest, as such a seemingly obvious contradiction between posts could confuse things quite a lot.

Metherion

I'm glad you brought it up, I never considered Darwinism to be identical with methodological naturalism so clearly I misunderstood what you were saying there. Methodological naturalism makes to inferences regarding God or miracles, Darwinism does. I hope that clears up the confusion.

Edit: I also THOUGHT I had defined realism, I'm sorry. Realism would be the assumption that all observers share a common reality. Interobjective is when an event in objectively the same, no matter who is viewing it. It is objective between viewers. Interobjective.

Well if the definition is that simple I don't see a problem. It sounds like you never had Scientific Realism in mind when you posted it but when you capitalized it I thought you were indicating a systematic philosophy. If you just mean that the observers all share the same reality and that the testing of hypothesis are the same for both or all, I have no problem with it.

 

[metherion]

Well, as far as I understand the term, metaphysical naturalism states that physically and metaphysically, nothing exists except the natural. Your definition of 'Darwinian' states

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.

So, basically, nothing exists outside of the natural that is capable of influencing any change in the organic or inorganic world. For the purposes of our discussion, they're pretty much the same. You agree that evolution as science is methodologically natural, but you think UCD and other things are 'darwinian', which you assert might as well be metaphysically naturalistic with the fields of reality they touch upon.

As for realism, it was capitalized because it was the first word after a semicolon , but I can understand the confusion. Personally, I'm torn a bit between scientific realism and intrumentalism. But that's neither here nor there.

Again, there are multiple posts to respond to, so replies will be similarly long, may similarly have to omit points, and will be long in coming as my professor will be coming back from Louisiana soon so I must get cracking on my thesis. Sadface. But, it's not like this discussion is going to vanish off the face of the internet.

Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, as far as I understand the term, metaphysical naturalism states that physically and metaphysically, nothing exists except the natural. Your definition of 'Darwinian' states

So, basically, nothing exists outside of the natural that is capable of influencing any change in the organic or inorganic world. For the purposes of our discussion, they're pretty much the same. You agree that evolution as science is methodologically natural, but you think UCD and other things are 'darwinian', which you assert might as well be metaphysically naturalistic with the fields of reality they touch upon.

This seems like it's the only real problem area, clearly Darwinism rejects any miraculous explanations for life. That is clearly out of bounds for methodological naturalism and the Newtonian rules of scientific investigation. I really don't want to leave the impression I reject natural selection, in fact, it's very important to me as a Creationist believe it or not.

I believe UCD to be metaphysics because it does not leave room for a null hypothesis, or it abandoned any vestige of a null hypothesis long ago. I just think it's important to realize that UCD, TOE and NS are all discernibly different and there lines that UCD has crossed. That doesn't make it wrong, it just means UCD and TOE are not synonymous.

As for realism, it was capitalized because it was the first word after a semicolon , but I can understand the confusion. Personally, I'm torn a bit between scientific realism and intrumentalism. But that's neither here nor there.

I get the impression that both Realism and Instrumentalism are addressing very specific problems, most philosophical systems are like that. They are related to scientific models and I'm wondering how relevant they might be to UCD, really haven't looked into them that much.

Again, there are multiple posts to respond to, so replies will be similarly long, may similarly have to omit points, and will be long in coming as my professor will be coming back from Louisiana soon so I must get cracking on my thesis. Sadface. But, it's not like this discussion is going to vanish off the face of the internet.

Metherion

I really don't think we need to make exhaustive responses to what has already been gone over. The only real problem is the definition of evolution and how it relates to UCD. We are pretty much in agreement on the definition of science and I see no real conflicts on doctrine, except for 'creation'. Philadiddle is talking about starting a thread just for that so I'm willing to wait and see if that can help to clarify the term, or more realistically terms associated with 'creation'. We have such a huge language and yet we have such a limited vocabulary of some pretty important things, did you know the New Testament has three words for love and we have one?

We are more knowledgeable about some things but I'm not sure we are that much wiser.

Any way, I think we made a lot of progress here. At least we boiled it down to something manageable. God speed with your studies and I'll be watching for your posts.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Calminian]

Can a person believe in evolution and still go to Heaven if they accept Jesus as their savior?

A person can believe a whole lot of false things and still go to heaven.

Problem is, people translate this into "theology doesn't matter."

 

[metherion]

Just an update, I don't have a post ready to go, I've been working on it. It's just been a few days, and I didn't want anyone to think I forgot.

ETA: What I've done so far is gone over most of your most recent post. What I'm working on now is going through the previous two posts you made before THAT, picking out those points that relate to what you've said you believe is the main focus, and I'll be going through them later.

What I've been doing so far in my research is putting data from my lab notebook into Excel for further analysis.

By the way, I'm going to be introducing a new definition:

Methodological naturalism:
The idea that all scientific endeavors, including hypotheses, events, et cetera, are to tested and explained in reference to nature and with regard to natural events.

Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

Methodological Naturalism, sounds like you have an interesting epistemology in store for us. I can hardly wait.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[metherion]

Again, sorry, just another update.

In my insomnia tonite/during tomorrow I'm going to try and dissect one of the posts (#68), while this weekend I'll try and get the other. Again, so sorry for a huge wait.

Metherion