Evolution and Science

[Dust and Ashes]

You're self-existing, but you had a mum and dad.

The Big Bang Theory doesn't say that the universe came about entirely of its own accord, out of nothing. It says that there was a singularity that expanded over an enormous period of time (12-20 billion years) to become the universe we have now.

Science even at this level of complexity is essentially descriptive. It says "this is what we think happened, and this is way we think it happened." It says nothing about who started the process, or why it happened. These are theological and philosophical questions, not scientific ones.

No, I'm not self-existing, I had a beginning and was made by someone else, therefore I am not self-existant.
The scientific community by and large believes and puts forth as fact that the universe is self-existant (that's right out of the humanist manifesto) and that there is no God. I know, I know, "A lot of scientists are Christian." Well, a lot of scientists aren't and being fallen creatures, it behooves them to get God out of the picture, otherwise there might be some rules they are supposed to follow.

All I was saying in the post was that most proponents of the BBT believe that the universe is self-existant and that everything came into existence naturalistically because nature is all there is. There was no creation because there is no God. Now if you admit that God "lit the fuse" that led to the Big Bang then you have eliminated a whole lot of problems that atheists face in their philosophy/science (or don't face as it were.) And since we are all Christians, I don't see why we would have a problem giving God credit for creating the universe regardless of how He did it. That's ALL I was saying.

 

[artybloke]

The scientific community by and large believes and puts forth as fact that the universe is self-existant (that's right out of the humanist manifesto) and that there is no God.

And you know this how exactly? (Have you got the results of a survey of the beliefs of all scientists to give us, for instance? Or have you asked them all personally yourself? (There's a few hundred thousand around the world, by the way, so you'll have a job on.) Don't make assumptions; they only lead to prejudice.

Methodological materialism - which is used in all the sciences, not just astrophysics and evolution - simply assumes that God is not part of the equation (E will never equal God, it will always equal mc2.) Not all scientists are Christian, but many are; as well as many also being Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan etc.

So even if a scientist were to believe that world was created by Iggy the Magic Elf, it wouldn't make any difference to his/her acceptance of current scientific theory, as religion and science run on paralell tracks, and never cross swords (unless you're a creationist.)

 

[Dust and Ashes]

And you know this how exactly? (Have you got the results of a survey of the beliefs of all scientists to give us, for instance? Or have you asked them all personally yourself? (There's a few hundred thousand around the world, by the way, so you'll have a job on.) Don't make assumptions; they only lead to prejudice.

Methodological materialism - which is used in all the sciences, not just astrophysics and evolution - simply assumes that God is not part of the equation (E will never equal God, it will always equal mc2.) Not all scientists are Christian, but many are; as well as many also being Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan etc.

So even if a scientist were to believe that world was created by Iggy the Magic Elf, it wouldn't make any difference to his/her acceptance of current scientific theory, as religion and science run on paralell tracks, and never cross swords (unless you're a creationist.)

So you are saying that God is God yet He had nothing to do with the formation of the universe? Wow, what a small god... Why worship Him if He didn't have anything to do with anything? Do you believe that God created the universe or that it just created itself and God came along later and decided to be God? As far as religion and science never touching, perhaps you should read some of Karl's posts as he seems to have a very good handle on things as far as God's place in things without giving up what mainstream science demonstrates. He's quite a nice guy too.

As far as doing a comprehensive survey or whatever, you can keep that tarbaby and play with it yourself. I didn't say ALL scientists, I was basing it on what I've read in textbooks. If the common theory put forth assumes there is no God, then one can reasonably assume that at least a significant number accept that belief.

And I'm not talking about methodological materialism, I'm talking about scientific materialism, naturalism, or whatever you want to call it, the belief that there is a materialistic or naturalistic origin for the universe, which means without God.

I think we need to define terms here. Everyone here should believe in creation. Unless you don't believe that God created the universe. Maybe He used a Big Bang and slow, unguided evolution, maybe He guided it or maybe He did it in 6 days. When you say "materialistic" or "naturalistic" means, you are saying "without God" as that is what those terms mean when used in that context. It seems that anything that a "creationist" says is reflexively attacked without even looking at the meaning or context.

I'm not saying He didn't use evolution and I'm not attacking mainstream science, I'm simply saying what I just said in the last paragraph. Now I suppose if you believe in unguided, pure-chance evolution the term naturalistic evolutionary processes could accurately be used because even though He created the universe with a Big Bang, He then stepped back and let life evolve on its own.

To summarize, I am saying that I don't see how God could be called the Creator if He didn't at least start the whole thing. I'm not arguing against the BBT or evolution, I'm simply saying that the Big Bang could not have been a naturalistic occurrence, as that would mean by definition that God didn't cause it to happen and thus is NOT the Creator.

Maybe we should use the term special creation to refer to the belief that God created the universe as is in a short time as there is no doubt (at least among Christians) that He created the universe.

 

[gluadys]

I think we need to define terms here. Everyone here should believe in creation. Unless you don't believe that God created the universe. Maybe He used a Big Bang and slow, unguided evolution, maybe He guided it or maybe He did it in 6 days. When you say "materialistic" or "naturalistic" means, you are saying "without God" as that is what those terms mean when used in that context. It seems that anything that a "creationist" says is reflexively attacked without even looking at the meaning or context.
.

Emphasis added.

I think you should change the bolded words to "I". That may be what you mean by materialistic or naturalistic. It is not what I mean.

I cannot conceive how a universe which is upheld every millisecond by the will of God can possibly act apart from God. For me, materialistic or naturalistic processes, even when unguided, are as much an act of God as special actions apart from natural processes. From that perspective there is simply no such thing as any process of nature that is "without God".

 

[hesalive]

No you don't. That, unfortunately is the whole bloody point. You don't.

It is so obvious that you are fumbling around terms and concepts you don't comprehend.

I cannot draw to save my life - so i don't pretend i'm an artist. You cannot understand science based upon your typings here - ergo, you shouldn't pretend otherwise.

I repeat - you have not the skill set to distinguish science from non-science. Actually your skill seems to be completely getting it wrong - hence in the future just take the position of anything you think isn't science then it probably is - anything you think is science probably is not - then you should be on the right course.

Well this sure is a superior bunch around here. It seems that the rest of us trailer trash cannot comprehend the world around us or the hand of God as we do not suffer from accademics. I'm certainly glad I havent contracted that one yet. I think a daily dose of the Word will keep me innoculated.

As to the point at hand. All the discussion is about natural science. God is excluded from this as the proponents on this thread have themselves attested to. Only the observable, testable, tastable, feelable and soforth qualify as real science. I was under the misguided perception that "real" science was a pursuit of truth. How vain and short sighted we are to think that truth only lies in what we can concieve of. This excludes everything that we cannot concieve of. I personally feel I can hardly concieve of God. He is too immense for my mortal mind. To say that I can sum up His creative acts within my my mind based on natural perceptions would be woefully inadequate no matter what my accademic level. The "natural" laws that we have set up are only based on our perceptions. Obviously, God is above that. He is not confined by natural law, but in theorizing His creative acts based only upon natural law is to confine God within them. To confine the creator to only be able to operate within His creation is illogical. I'm sorry but I dont have a list of accademics to back up that assertion. Just the thoughts of a simple man.

Nice try Freedom 777. Dont let this bunch beat you down.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I should point out - I don't think there's any real difference between my "handle" on it and artybloke's, or Gluadys'. As is pointed out, when we say "natural" or "materialistic" we do not mean "without God" - we mean "without supernatural interference with the normal operation of the material universe" - a very different thing. God generally works this way - most of the time we may be able to discern by faith the hand of God in events, and yet they are all perfectly normal events. As in human history, so in the history of the universe. God is working His purpose out. Miracles are the exception, not the norm. We should look for non-miraculous working first.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Emphasis added.

I think you should change the bolded words to "I". That may be what you mean by materialistic or naturalistic. It is not what I mean.

I cannot conceive how a universe which is upheld every millisecond by the will of God can possibly act apart from God. For me, materialistic or naturalistic processes, even when unguided, are as much an act of God as special actions apart from natural processes. From that perspective there is simply no such thing as any process of nature that is "without God".

SIGH

Ok, I'm going to give it one more try. If you refuse to understand, then I'll quit. What you mean when you say it has nothing to do with what it generally means. I understand what you are saying and I'm not accusing anyone of not believing in God or claiming (intentionally) that He is not real. When I (or anyone else) says that the universe began by naturalistic means, they may not mean without God but that is what they said.

Naturalism and Scientific Materialism are very popular philosophies among the scientific elite and they both mean basically the same thing when referring to world views.

To be quite honest, I think that the prejudice against creationists makes you all reject anything we say out of hand without even considering it. Even when it doesn't contradict what you believe. How scientific is that kind of attitude?

naturalism
\Nat"u*ral*ism\, n. 1. A state of nature; conformity to nature.

2. (Metaph.) The doctrine of those who deny a supernatural agency in the miracles and revelations recorded in the Bible, and in spiritual influences; also, any system of philosophy which refers the phenomena of nature to a blind force or forces acting necessarily or according to fixed laws, excluding origination or direction by one intelligent will.

ma·te·ri·al·ism
n. 1. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

I should point out - I don't think there's any real difference between my "handle" on it and artybloke's, or Gluadys'. As is pointed out, when we say "natural" or "materialistic" we do not mean "without God" - we mean "without supernatural interference with the normal operation of the material universe" - a very different thing. God generally works this way - most of the time we may be able to discern by faith the hand of God in events, and yet they are all perfectly normal events. As in human history, so in the history of the universe. God is working His purpose out. Miracles are the exception, not the norm. We should look for non-miraculous working first.

So you maintain that God had nothing to do with the Big Bang? Nothing at all? He didn't even create the singularity that exploded?

When I referred to your handle on things, I meant you don't seem to make assumptions about what someone is saying but rather read what they write and take it for what it says. I wasn't trying to create dissention in the TE ranks.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

To reiterate, I am not referring to anything that occurred after the Big Bang. Everything could have came about by naturalistic means after that but (if the BB is the ultimate beginning of the universe) then God had to cause it. That's ALL I am saying. lol

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So you maintain that God had nothing to do with the Big Bang? Nothing at all? He didn't even create the singularity that exploded?

When I referred to your handle on things, I meant you don't seem to make assumptions about what someone is saying but rather read what they write and take it for what it says. I wasn't trying to create dissention in the TE ranks.

God had no more, and no less, to do with the Big Bang than any other scientific phenomenon.

The emphasis is on "no less".

Thing is, from a purely scientific frame of reference, these events are purely materialistic, because science can ONLY view things from a materialistic frame of reference.

The theological meaning and significance we put on things is quite another matter.

 

[artybloke]

So you maintain that God had nothing to do with the Big Bang?

Listen very carefully: God created the universe. But he didn't use a miracle to do it. He used the Big Bang; which is a perfectly natural phenomenon that can be observed from the evidence it leaves behind. But that phenomenon doesn't prove the existence of God; though to the eyes of faith, it implies it.

That is our position.

but (if the BB is the ultimate beginning of the universe) then God had to cause it.

So we're agreed then. That is the theistic evolutionary position. But don't expect science to confirm this, because science deals simply with the natural world. It cannot test for, or hypothesise, the existence or otherwise of a supernatural being. That's like asking a physicist to tell you why Wordsworth's poems are better than Southey's poems. He won't know, unless he also knows about English literature. It is outside his field.

Naturalism and Scientific Materialism

There is a clear distinction between methodological materialism and philosophical materialism, as I'm sure the vast majority of scientists are aware. Don't mix them up. Methodological materialism has to do with what a particular field of knowledge contains and what it can test for. The scientific method involves the testing of natural phenomena and the material things of the universe. It is not made to test anything else, and cannot make statements about anything else as science. As soon as scientists step out of merely describing the results of their testing of the material world and say "this proves/this disproves the existence of God," they are stepping outside of the realms of science. Whether their names are Richard Dawkins (atheist) or Russell Stannard (theist.)

Some scientists no doubt do confuse the two kinds of materialism. But it's not a good thing to make sweeping statements about all science.

Oh and to he'salive:

I was under the misguided perception that "real" science was a pursuit of truth.

Science is about the pursuit of knowledge about how the world works. It no more has the "whole" truth than any other branch of knowledge, though it is a very important part of that truth. It can't deal with what it can't measure.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Listen very carefully: God created the universe. But he didn't use a miracle to do it. He used the Big Bang; which is a perfectly natural phenomenon that can be observed from the evidence it leaves behind. But that phenomenon doesn't prove the existence of God; though to the eyes of faith, it implies it.

That is our position.



So we're agreed then. That is the theistic evolutionary position. But don't expect science to confirm this, because science deals simply with the natural world. It cannot test for, or hypothesise, the existence or otherwise of a supernatural being. That's like asking a physicist to tell you why Wordsworth's poems are better than Southey's poems. He won't know, unless he also knows about English literature. It is outside his field.



There is a clear distinction between methodological materialism and philosophical materialism, as I'm sure the vast majority of scientists are aware. Don't mix them up. Methodological materialism has to do with what a particular field of knowledge contains and what it can test for. The scientific method involves the testing of natural phenomena and the material things of the universe. It is not made to test anything else, and cannot make statements about anything else as science. As soon as scientists step out of merely describing the results of their testing of the material world and say "this proves/this disproves the existence of God," they are stepping outside of the realms of science. Whether their names are Richard Dawkins (atheist) or Russell Stannard (theist.)

Some scientists no doubt do confuse the two kinds of materialism. But it's not a good thing to make sweeping statements about all science.

Oh and to he'salive:



Science is about the pursuit of knowledge about how the world works. It no more has the "whole" truth than any other branch of knowledge, though it is a very important part of that truth. It can't deal with what it can't measure.

Ok, I quit. I forgot about the knack for scientists to pick every word apart and over-complicate things. You answered my question in the midst of all of that but took about 5 times the words needed and threw in a couple of other concepts and ideas that I never intended to touch on but you answered it. whew.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

God had no more, and no less, to do with the Big Bang than any other scientific phenomenon.

The emphasis is on "no less".

Thing is, from a purely scientific frame of reference, these events are purely materialistic, because science can ONLY view things from a materialistic frame of reference.

The theological meaning and significance we put on things is quite another matter.

Ok, now I understand. Thanks

 

[artybloke]

Actually, I'm not a scientist. I'm a poet.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Listen very carefully: God created the universe. But he didn't use a miracle to do it. He used the Big Bang; which is a perfectly natural phenomenon that can be observed from the evidence it leaves behind. But that phenomenon doesn't prove the existence of God; though to the eyes of faith, it implies it.

Do you believe that miracles are explainable naturalistically? I've always wondered about this. (Please don't assume that because I'm a creationist that I don't understand the concept.) I know an IQ of 142 probably puts me on the low end with present company but I am able to "see" complex, abstract concepts in my mind. Also, I'm not the enemy. I am sincerely seeking truth and just because you have been convinced, I haven't seen all the evidence you have and what I have seen has been woefully inadequate to convince me. {now I'm sure someone will comment that I refuse to see what's obvious when I haven't seen anything obvious}

I know it's getting a bit off topic for the thread and board but I've always personally held the belief that Jesus was simply a man with God as a soul. I believe that when He performed a miracle, He didn't use the Divine power that He could certainly call on but that rather He did it through faith. I'm not dogmatic about this belief, it's just what I've come to believe. How do you guys feel about the origin or methods of the miracles He performed?

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Actually, I'm not a scientist. I'm a poet.

Ahhhh, a professional wordsmith!! That explains it. lol

 

[artybloke]

Do you believe that miracles are explainable naturalistically?

Dunno is the answer to that one. I don't automatically disbelieve them though, as some liberals might; but if there is a "naturalistic" explanation, then I guess the "miracle" would be in when they happened and not so much "how."

I know it's getting a bit off topic for the thread and board but I've always personally held the belief that Jesus was simply a man with God as a soul.

Not sure I'd divide the Incarnation up that way myself. I think that's probably too neat a solution, and probably a bit Arian; but I'm with you in the rest. Christ "emptied himself" (kenosis in Greek) of his divinity and became all human.

Just one point about the word "obvious": a lot of scientific knowledge is what is termed as "counter-intuitive": that is, it goes against what you think must be obvious. Just from looking with your eyes at the sky, it's "obvious" that the sun goes round the earth. But it doesn't, and we have the evidence to show that it doesn't. Evolution doesn't have to be obvious to be true; it just has to fit the known data (and any new data that comes in) better than any other theory.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Do you believe that miracles are explainable naturalistically? I've always wondered about this. (Please don't assume that because I'm a creationist that I don't understand the concept.)

Some probably are. Others are not. If they are not, then they are beyond science to explain.

I know an IQ of 142 probably puts me on the low end with present company

I doubt that!

but I am able to "see" complex, abstract concepts in my mind. Also, I'm not the enemy. I am sincerely seeking truth and just because you have been convinced, I haven't seen all the evidence you have and what I have seen has been woefully inadequate to convince me. {now I'm sure someone will comment that I refuse to see what's obvious when I haven't seen anything obvious}

Well, we'd like to be able to present more evidence. I'll start a couple of threads specifically on evidence when I've finished responding to this post.

I know it's getting a bit off topic for the thread and board but I've always personally held the belief that Jesus was simply a man with God as a soul.

Actually, that's possibly a little close to the ancient heresy of Nestorianism for comfort. The orthodox view is that Jesus was human and divine, but not in a way where you can pull out human bits and divine bits. But I digress.

I believe that when He performed a miracle, He didn't use the Divine power that He could certainly call on but that rather He did it through faith. I'm not dogmatic about this belief, it's just what I've come to believe. How do you guys feel about the origin or methods of the miracles He performed?

Being God is always useful in these situations.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Actually, that's possibly a little close to the ancient heresy of Nestorianism for comfort. The orthodox view is that Jesus was human and divine, but not in a way where you can pull out human bits and divine bits. But I digress.

Yeah, that was way oversimplifying. I guess I should just let it go at He was both fully God and fully man instead of trying to articulate something that I can barely get my mind around.

Really looking forward to the evidence posts.