Evolution conflict and division

[2PhiloVoid]

Newton's entire science frame work depended upon God. This is one of his clearest statements.

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
— Principia, General Scholium. Newton believed science reveals how God ordered creation, not that it replaces God. Further more Newton said, “The authority of Scripture is the authority of God himself.”— Yahuda Manuscript 7.3 He also believed genesis as being literal.
Isaac Newton explicitly referred to God when discussing gravity, both in his scientific works and in related correspondence. He did not see gravity as a self-sufficient, atheistic mechanism. He understood it as part of God’s orderly governance of creation.

Since we both agree that evolutionary science is godless then we are left with what to do with the god concept. Was it Deus ex machina lowered in at the end of the play to tie up all the loose ends?

Sorry, but evolutionary theory has no room for a biblical Adam either. It really only intellectually fits atheism.

You keep speaking out of turn for things you're not completely up to date on. I think you're confusing a position known as Philosophical Naturalism with some false assumptions you have about BOTH Methodological Naturalism AND even Intelligent Design advocated by some like Michael Behe.

Hence, you need to parse out a better taxonomy of epistemic positions** that actually exists out in the real, academic world and refrain from equivocating between them.

1) Philosophical Naturalism​

​

2) Methodological Naturalism​

​

3) Intelligent Design​

​

4) Thomistic Scholasticism​

​

5) Other religions​

So no, there is no ontological necessity that requires we assume that where the recognition of evolutionary processes are concerned, that there is either a God in the process or no God in the process. The choice to see it one way or another is an open epistemic inquiry and the only actual place that God is artificially taken out of the explanatory process is in EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE because no one can control for God as a variable.

**And no, A.I. was not used in the creation of this post.

 

[Job 33:6]

I am not really concerned with what AI has to say. But I am surprised that you seem unaware of double references in the bible. "Double reference" in biblical interpretation, often called the "law of double reference," is a prophetic principle where a single scripture passage simultaneously points to two events, one immediate/partial (like a sign for a contemporary king) and another future/ultimate (like the Messiah or End Times), linking them as though they were one to show fulfillment, as seen in Isaiah 7:14 (Immanuel) applying to a contemporary sign and Jesus, or Matthew 24 concerning both the AD 70 temple destruction and the Second Coming.

Examples are things like Isaiah 7:14

The immediate reference was Isaiah speaking to King Ahaz about a child to be born as a sign that Judah will survive the current political crisis. Later Matthew 1:22–23 applies the passage to Jesus’ birth. The child is both a short-term sign in Isaiah’s day and a messianic sign in the Gospel narrative.

Psalm 22 Was David’s own experience of suffering and persecution. Later referenced during the crucifixion of Jesus (quoted directly in Matthew 27:46). David’s suffering becomes a pattern fulfilled more fully in Christ.

Joel 2:28–32 Immediately refers to the restoration after national judgment and locust devastation. Later Peter declares its fulfillment at Pentecost (Acts 2:16–21). Peter explicitly treats the prophecy as already and not yet.

There are many more but you get the idea.

So the disagreement here isn’t whether Scripture can have layered meaning, it can. The disagreement is whether later theological reflection is allowed to override original context. On that point, the examples you’ve raised (Isaiah 7, Hosea 11) actually support my position, not undermine it.

I agree that Scripture develops its theology over time and that later biblical authors reflect back on earlier texts in meaningful ways. But that development does not replace or override original meaning; it builds upon it. Typology, prophecy, and so-called “double reference” only function because the earlier text already has a determinate historical sense. Isaiah 7 still refers to a sign for Ahaz; Hosea 11 still refers to Israel’s exodus; Matthew’s theological use does not retroactively redefine what those passages originally meant. In the same way, Genesis must first be read within its own ancient Near Eastern context before later theological reflections about death, curse, or restoration can be layered on top. Otherwise, interpretation collapses into reading conclusions back into the text rather than drawing meaning out of it.

That is why the burden of proof matters here. In the ancient Near Eastern world, animals were understood to be mortal, creation accounts were about ordering the cosmos, and “good” did not mean deathless perfection. That cultural background is not theology imposed on the text; it is the default horizon of meaning for the original audience. If one wishes to argue that Genesis departs from that default and depicts a deathless creation, that claim requires clear and explicit textual signals. Appeals to narrative flow, later canonical theology, or abstract notions like “very good” are interpretive inferences, not evidence of such a departure. Without concrete textual markers, the most responsible reading is the one grounded in historical context. Anything beyond that is a theological construction layered onto the text, not something demonstrably derived from it.

 

[The Barbarian]

No god in physics, either. Did anyone think there should be? When Newton declined to put God in his theory of gravitation, do you think Newton was thereby an atheist?

Newton's entire science frame work depended upon God. This is one of his clearest statements.

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Sort of like Darwin, then...
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; andthat, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms mostbeautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." - Last sentence of On the Origin of Species

So the question is, "why, if Newton and Darwin thought that God was the Creator, did they not insert Him into their theories?" The answer, of course, is that science is too weak a method to include God. It is limited to considering the physical universe only.

Since we both agree that evolutionary science is godless

And now you seem to have recognized that physics is also godless. So we can put aside that issue and move on to the next.

then we are left with what to do with the god concept

Although science can't help you with that, there are other ways of dealing with the issue. Perhaps Summa Theologica (St. Thomas Aquinas) would help you in that search. It could clear up a lot of questions for you.

Sorry, but evolutionary theory has no room for a biblical Adam either.

In fact, nothing in evolutionary science rules out our descent from a single pair of ancestors. You were badly misled about that.

It really only intellectually fits atheism.

It's funny how YE creationists and atheists are united in demanding that theists cannot accept evolutionary theory. By now, you can see that they are entirely wrong in that demand.

 

[The Barbarian]

You keep speaking out of turn for things you're not completely up to date on. I think you're confusing a position known as Philosophical Naturalism with some false assumptions you have about BOTH Methodological Naturalism AND even Intelligent Design advocated by some like Michael Behe.

Hence, you need to parse out a better taxonomy of epistemic positions** that actually exists out in the real, academic world and refrain from equivocating between them.

1) Philosophical Naturalism2) Methodological Naturalism3) Intelligent Design4) Thomistic Scholasticism5) Other religions
So no, there is no ontological necessity that requires we assume that where the recognition of evolutionary processes are concerned, that there is either a God in the process or no God in the process. The choice to see it one way or another is an open epistemic inquiry and the only actual place that God is artificially taken out of the explanatory process is in EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE because no one can control for God as a variable.

Today's winner.

 

[Mercy Shown]

No god in physics, either. Did anyone think there should be? When Newton declined to put God in his theory of gravitation, do you think Newton was thereby an atheist?


Sort of like Darwin, then...
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; andthat, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms mostbeautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." - Last sentence of On the Origin of Species

So the question is, "why, if Newton and Darwin thought that God was the Creator, did they not insert Him into their theories?" The answer, of course, is that science is too weak a method to include God. It is limited to considering the physical universe only.


And now you seem to have recognized that physics is also godless. So we can put aside that issue and move on to the next.


Although science can't help you with that, there are other ways of dealing with the issue. Perhaps Summa Theologica (St. Thomas Aquinas) would help you in that search. It could clear up a lot of questions for you.

In fact, nothing in evolutionary science rules out our descent from a single pair of ancestors. You were badly misled about that.

It's funny how YE creationists and atheists are united in demanding that theists cannot accept evolutionary theory. By now, you can see that they are entirely wrong in that demand.

That's because evolutionary theists live in a fantasy world where they keep God and science separate as if science can exist apart from God and then they attribute the start of everything to God which includes science. It is really a mixed up mess they somehow can accommodate, Hey, it is alright and it hurts no one. The tradition of Yoruba people of west Africa held that God dumped some dirt from the shell of an Archachatina marginata onto the earth at Ile Ife and tossed in some chickens. They started scratching around until there was solid ground for people to live on. I guess they have as much truth to what they believe as anyone esle.

Now just to be sure I have heard you right. The evolution of life one this planet happened separately by chance mutations and natural selection that had nothing whatsoever to do with a god or higher power.

 

[Mercy Shown]

So the disagreement here isn’t whether Scripture can have layered meaning, it can. The disagreement is whether later theological reflection is allowed to override original context. On that point, the examples you’ve raised (Isaiah 7, Hosea 11) actually support my position, not undermine it.

I agree that Scripture develops its theology over time and that later biblical authors reflect back on earlier texts in meaningful ways. But that development does not replace or override original meaning; it builds upon it. Typology, prophecy, and so-called “double reference” only function because the earlier text already has a determinate historical sense. Isaiah 7 still refers to a sign for Ahaz; Hosea 11 still refers to Israel’s exodus; Matthew’s theological use does not retroactively redefine what those passages originally meant. In the same way, Genesis must first be read within its own ancient Near Eastern context before later theological reflections about death, curse, or restoration can be layered on top. Otherwise, interpretation collapses into reading conclusions back into the text rather than drawing meaning out of it.

That is why the burden of proof matters here. In the ancient Near Eastern world, animals were understood to be mortal, creation accounts were about ordering the cosmos, and “good” did not mean deathless perfection. That cultural background is not theology imposed on the text; it is the default horizon of meaning for the original audience. If one wishes to argue that Genesis departs from that default and depicts a deathless creation, that claim requires clear and explicit textual signals. Appeals to narrative flow, later canonical theology, or abstract notions like “very good” are interpretive inferences, not evidence of such a departure. Without concrete textual markers, the most responsible reading is the one grounded in historical context. Anything beyond that is a theological construction layered onto the text, not something demonstrably derived from it.

Now what do you say? We need to dump AI and start talking to each other. As it is now I think to some extent we have AI arguing with itself.

 

[Mercy Shown]

You keep speaking out of turn for things you're not completely up to date on. I think you're confusing a position known as Philosophical Naturalism with some false assumptions you have about BOTH Methodological Naturalism AND even Intelligent Design advocated by some like Michael Behe.

I don't think you have a clue as to what I am saying.

Hence, you need to parse out a better taxonomy of epistemic positions** that actually exists out in the real, academic world and refrain from equivocating between them.

1) Philosophical Naturalism​

​

2) Methodological Naturalism​

​

3) Intelligent Design​

​

4) Thomistic Scholasticism​

​

5) Other religions​

So no, there is no ontological necessity that requires we assume that where the recognition of evolutionary processes are concerned, that there is either a God in the process or no God in the process. The choice to see it one way or another is an open epistemic inquiry and the only actual place that God is artificially taken out of the explanatory process is in EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE because no one can control for God as a variable.

**And no, A.I. was not used in the creation of this post.

I can tell. I have abandoned it myself. The fact remains that either evolution theory is godless. So that leave theistic evolutionists a real problem. What to do with god concepts? The term theistic evolution is a contradiction itself if one believes a god or higher power had anything to do with it.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The term theistic evolution is a contradiction itself if one believes a god or higher power had anything to do with it.

I don’t agree with that. But I am late to this conversation. Evolution is simply “how” not a “whence”

 

[The Barbarian]

That's because evolutionary theists live in a fantasy world where they keep God and science separate

You might as well say that plumbers live in a fantasy world where they keep God and pipes separate. C'mon. Do you even think what you write?

then they attribute the start of everything to God which includes science.

Yeah, plumbers who are theists attribute hydraulics to God, even if they don't invoke God to do plumbing. Pretty much the way Newton attributed gravitation to God, even if he didn't use God in his physics. That's how science works. It's why people of all faiths, or even people of no faith at all, can still do science.

The tradition of Yoruba people of west Africa held that God dumped some dirt from the shell of an Archachatina marginata onto the earth at Ile Ife and tossed in some chickens. They started scratching around until there was solid ground for people to live on. I guess they have as much truth to what they believe as anyone esle.

Makes more sense than the "maybe a space alien" designer of the IDers. To each his own. But a Yoruba physicist could do physics; his beliefs wouldn't make any difference at all.

The evolution of life one this planet happened separately by chance mutations and natural selection that had nothing whatsoever to do with a god or higher power.

The origin of life on this planet happened because God made the universe in such a way as to have the earth bring forth living things. That's what He says. I believe Him. You should, too.

While Darwin's great discovery was that evolution is not random, there is still contingency, which God can also use to His purposes. So if it happened that sarcopterygians had four preaxial radials, rather than five, we would have four digits on each hand. Do you think God stepped in and made it five? Indians living in the high Andes have mutations that allow them to be healthy at those altitudes. So do Tibetans. But the mutations are different. Same adaptations, but different paths. That's what homology is about.

that had nothing whatsoever to do with a god or higher power.

God made the earth to bring forth life. Why not just accept it?

 

[The Barbarian]

The fact remains that either evolution theory is godless.

In the same sense that physics is godless, even though Newton, like Darwin, attributed creation to God. They just couldn't squeeze God into science; science is too weak a method to consider the supernatural. This shouldn't be that difficult to understand. Real scientists who are theists have no difficulty with this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think you have a clue as to what I am saying.

I actually do, and by now, you should have been able to recognize that I do. I just disagree with you. But don't blame me though. Blame the professors who taught me.

I can tell. I have abandoned it myself. The fact remains that either evolution theory is godless. So that leave theistic evolutionists a real problem. What to do with god concepts? The term theistic evolution is a contradiction itself if one believes a god or higher power had anything to do with it.

So, you're just going to continue on with your bulverism as if I previously said nothing which clarified your equivocating here. You're just being dogmatic, and I've studied way too much to be taken in by you. Who cares if evolution appears as a godless process to our meager human perceptions? I don't. And I have my reasons why I don't. But you're not going to hear any more of them from me. I've given you the open door to plenty of them already.

Your trolling license has now been revoked. Go bother someone else.

Have a nice life and I hope to see you on the other side.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I don’t agree with that. But I am late to this conversation. Evolution is simply “how” not a “whence”

The claim was made that God is totally separate from evolution. And yet some how started it all. If God in fact used employed evolution as a creation process. Then we must ask, did he guide it or was it as Darwin theorized natural selection that eventually pin balled it along. If it was natural selection then God did not know what type of creatures would eventually emerge from the random processes of gene mutations nor does he know what might be emerging in the future.

If he did guide it then natural selection is challenged by divine selection. Theologically, the idea the God is love, is brought into question since God had an animal fighting ring for billions of years with all the blood and carnage one could ever hope for. It also would seem strange that he would suddenly reverse his position and ask that we love our enemies and quit fighting.

I imagine that most theistic evolutionists put these questions out of sight and mind and just focus on the sanitized science behind micro evolution. But the fact remains that there is quite a bit of dissonance between the bible narratives and theistic evolutions implications. It is much easier to be an atheist when discussing evolution.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I actually do, and by now, you should have been able to recognize that I do. I just disagree with you. But don't blame me though. Blame the professors who taught me.

I have seen no evidence that you do. State what you think my position is.

So, you're just going to continue on with your bulverism as if I previously said nothing which clarified your equivocating here. You're just being dogmatic, and I've studied way too much to be taken in by you.

Fist of all there is no evidence in my writing of Lewis's bulverism. If you believe there is, provide the quote and we can discuss it. While you are at it, provide examples of my equivocating. You seem to be under the delusion that because you say it, it must be so and you do not need to provide any evidence or support for your statements otherwise I will simply apply Hitchens's Razor to your post. " I've studied way too much to be taken in by you" This is a grand example of Illusory Superiority.

Your trolling license has now been revoked. Go bother someone else.

Have a nice life and I hope to see you on the other side.

You engaged me.

 

[Mercy Shown]

In the same sense that physics is godless, even though Newton, like Darwin, attributed creation to God. They just couldn't squeeze God into science; science is too weak a method to consider the supernatural. This shouldn't be that difficult to understand. Real scientists who are theists have no difficulty with this.

I realize that. Theistic Evolutionism does not spend time considering the implications the position has about God's character. Very few will even address them. They are also a bit wonky on Intelligent Design since they claim there was none in the evolutionary process and yet attribute the whole process to God anyway.

Will you answer these questions?

1. Did God know from the very beginning that humans would emerge from violence of natural selection?

2. How can we separate mankind form lower animals since they are all simply products of natural selection?

3. Considering that natural selection is a relentless competition for scarce resources, leading to the elimination of "unfit" individuals through death or reproductive failure, fostering traits like aggression and predation that secure survival, and can manifest in brutal acts like infanticide or intense conflict, all driven by the mindless, constant pressure to survive and pass on genes, even if it is cruel. It's a brutal weeding-out process where unfavorable variations are discarded, and advantageous ones prevail, making life a constant struggle, how can we support the biblical ideal that God is love. Why should man be held to a standard that even God does not reflect?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have seen no evidence that you do. State what you think my position is.

Stop playing games.

Fist of all there is no evidence in my writing of Lewis's bulverism. If you believe there is, provide the quote and we can discuss it.

Nah, because everyone else here can see that I'm correct.

While you are at it, provide examples of my equivocating.

I already did and I briefly explained it just a couple of posts ago. Are you blind? Did you not read? Did you not think? Did you not research what the definition of Philosophical Naturalism is and how it differs ontologically from Methodological Naturalism? I see not evidence that you even saw what I wrote.

Again, I'm sick of your games. I already made some solid statements that undermine your position, and I see ZERO recognition of those things. ZERO. This tells me that you're either extremely distracted, or you're being obtuse and obstinate because you don't want to concede that your more literalistic reading of the Bible isn't the epitome of interpretive understanding that you think it is.

You seem to be under the delusion that because you say it, it must be so

...... Lol! Sheesh! And to think that a post or two ago, I was about to say the identical thing about you.

and you do not need to provide any evidence or support for your statements otherwise I will simply apply Hitchens's Razor to your post.

Hitchen's???? New Atheism is dead. You may have missed the news brief that Hitchen's Razor has been blunted by a hard rock.

" I've studied way too much to be taken in by you" This is a grand example of Illusory Superiority.

You engaged me.

I don't care. I've been here longer. So shut up.

 

[Mercy Shown]

You might as well say that plumbers live in a fantasy world where they keep God and pipes separate. C'mon. Do you even think what you write?

I do, you don't. You seem to ignore the fact that evolution and plumbing are not the same thing. Perhaps you are struggling to understand the issue here. Theistic plumbing is not even a thing. Why do you attach the modifier "Theistic" to evolution and not to plumbing?

In general theistic evolution is the belief that God created the universe and life through the natural process of evolution, harmonizing scientific findings with religious faith by viewing evolution as a tool or method God used, rather than a conflict with creation. Adherents accept scientific evidence for evolution, the Big Bang, and deep time, interpreting creation accounts symbolically rather than literally, seeing God as initiating and sustaining the evolutionary process.

This directly ties God and evolution together. But how? That is the issue. What kind of God is he if he even exists. Your plumbing example misses this issue by miles.

Your idea that God just created this world to bring forth life spawns the very questions I am asking. One may stay with their head in the sand and be satisfied but I am not.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But the fact remains that there is quite a bit of dissonance between the bible narratives and theistic evolutions implications.

Well sure, Biblical narratives, especially Genesis, are mostly figurative, poetic, myth.
But myth discloses deeper truths.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Well sure, Biblical narratives, especially Genesis, are mostly figurative, poetic, myth.
But myth discloses deeper truths.

Truths about what? Is this not just open to anyone's interpretation. And how does the intense, often brutal, competition for survival and reproduction, where organisms with advantageous traits outcompete, kill, or displace others for limited resources, mates, and territory, driving evolution through the elimination of less fit variations, seen in predatory acts, sexual conflict, infanticide, and inter-group conflict, making survival a relentless, high-stakes struggle. Jibe with the a god of love? As the new testament portrays?
Why should we be asked to do what god doesn't?

 

[The Barbarian]

The claim was made that God is totally separate from evolution.

By whom? No one here. I think you've confused evolution, the observed natural phenomenon, and evolutionary theory, the currently best explanation we have for it.

If he did guide it then natural selection is challenged by divine selection. Theologically, the idea the God is love, is brought into question since God had an animal fighting ring for billions of years with all the blood and carnage one could ever hope for. It also would seem strange that he would suddenly reverse his position and ask that we love our enemies and quit fighting.

Here, you're just making moral decisions for God.

Then we must ask, did he guide it or was it as Darwin theorized natural selection that eventually pin balled it along. If it was natural selection then God did not know what type of creatures would eventually emerge from the random processes of gene mutations nor does he know what might be emerging in the future.

Here, you're assuming that God can't use contingency to effect His will.

If he did guide it then natural selection is challenged by divine selection.

Why do you think God's creation is opposed to His will? He made it to work as it does.

 

[Mercy Shown]

By whom? No one here. I think you've confused evolution, the observed natural phenomenon, and evolutionary theory, the currently best explanation we have for it.


Here, you're just making moral decisions for God.

Here, you're assuming that God can't use contingency to effect His will.

Why do you think God's creation is opposed to His will? He made it to work as it does.

These aren't answers. Just dodges.