Evolution conflict and division

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course many Christians do. Should we put science down stream from the bible? Yes, if you are an atheist.

Newton's entire work was undergirded by his belief in God.
In Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, or Principia, Isaac Newton's 1687 masterpiece that laid the foundation for classical mechanics, introducing his three laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation in a unified mathematical framework he wrote, “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 Mathematica, General Scholium (1713)

Darwin inserted his quote about God being the creator in the 2nd edition his most famous tome, On the Origin of Species to appease critics, though in his private writings he hinted at a naturalistic origin of life, seeing the "Creator" as a metaphor for the initial laws that set life in motion rather than a direct intervener. This addition allowed for a divine origin of a few primordial forms from which all life evolved, fitting with the idea of a law-abiding universe, but it didn't reflect his deeper belief in a fully naturalistic process for life's emergence, which he explored in other documents.




As you can see, you were incorrect in your assumption.

OH GOOD GRAVY!!! Newton wasn't even a Trinitarian in his 'Christian' beliefs.

So, if you're ok with that, why aren't you ok with Trinitarian Christians such as the rest of us here who just happen to differ with you over several chapters of Genesis?

 

[Mercy Shown]

I don't have any dissonance when applying something like Stephen J. Gould's Non-overlapping magisteria, especially when I apply Critical Analysis to both the sciences and the Bible by focusing on the fields of Historiography, The Philosophy of History, Archaeology, Philosophical Hermeneutics, and the Philosophy of Science.

But hey, if you want to believe in a literal 7 day creation and generally ignore science, go ahead. I'm not the one who is going to tell you not to.

I have explained to you that you are ignorant of my positions in this debate. I can list a half a dozen conundrums a 7 day creation would cause. In this post you tell me what actions you took but you failed to make an argument or even proffer a position to defend. My point is that we all live by faith in our axioms and that all the further it goes. My rebuttals of specifics are not declarations that they are wrong as much as demonstrating that one is taking them by faith.
We are all here referencing what we have been taught or told. You have faith in your vast library of philosophy and you impeccable education. You believe much of what you learned their or read but all by faith.

 

[Mercy Shown]

OH GOOD GRAVY!!! Newton wasn't even a Trinitarian in his 'Christian' beliefs.

So, if you're ok with that, why aren't you ok with Trinitarian Christians such as the rest of us here who just happen to differ with you over several chapters of Genesis?

What are you arguing with? It is all by faith in what you have been taught and told about genesis. Where does trinitarian belief fit into all of this?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have explained to you that you are ignorant of my positions in this debate.

Fine, I may not fully understand what your position is at the present moment.

I can list a half a dozen conundrums a 7 day creation would cause. In this post you tell me what actions you took but you failed to make an argument or even proffer a position to defend. My point is that we all live by faith in our axioms and that all the further it goes. My rebuttals of specifics are not declarations that they are wrong as much as demonstrating that one is taking them by faith.
We are all here referencing what we have been taught or told. You have faith in your vast library of philosophy and you impeccable education. You believe much of what you learned their or read but all by faith.

Faith in Christ is a different epistemological and ontological structure than simply having trust that a bridge won't collapse when you drive over it or that a passenger plane will safely take off and land, especially if we're one of the passengers on board.

Let's not confuse these two different uses of the term "faith." They're not the same, and I didn't earn a degree in Philosophy so that I can be kowtowed by those who like to mish-mash their terms, their referents, and their denotations.

And NO. I don't have "faith" in my vast, diverse library. ......... but it does help.

 

[Job 33:6]

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.

These are my arguments, just grammatically refined. I can write the same thing out again. AI isn't capable of making these kinds of arguments as far as I'm aware. You're welcome to use AI to push back though. Maybe it could mount a better challenge than others on this forum.

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 and replace original context. On that point, the examples 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 (such as in Romans 5) 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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What are you arguing with? It is all by faith in what you have been taught and told about genesis. Where does trinitarian belief fit into all of this?

What do you want to argue? That I have to believe in a literal 7 day creation in order to be a "good little Christian"?

I believe in the Trinity as is traditionally given; Isaac Newton didn't. But you're going to prop him up as a example to support your position on how important it is to "believe the Bible as written"?

 

[The Barbarian]

Newton's entire work was undergirded by his belief in God.

I've read lots of his papers. None of them involve God in his work. Just as Darwin's belief in a Creator who made the first living things wasn't part of his scientific work. Both Darwin and Newton (and other competent scientists) realized that God is too great to fit into scientific inquiry.

Pierre Simon-Laplace (perhaps you've heard of him):
Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.
Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.
(Later when told by Napoleon about the incident, Lagrange commented: Ah, but that is a fine hypothesis. It explains so many things.)

French scientists seem to have a talent for sarcasm.

Darwin inserted his quote about God being the creator in the 2nd edition his most famous tome, On the Origin of Species to appease critics, though in his private writings he hinted at a naturalistic origin of life

Yes. He thought God did it, using nature. That's what God says in Genesis.

seeing the "Creator" as a metaphor for the initial laws that set life in motion rather than a direct intervener.

Seems exactly contrary to what he said in On the Origin of Species. Is there a reason there's no citation supporting your claim?

This addition allowed for a divine origin of a few primordial forms from which all life evolved, fitting with the idea of a law-abiding universe

Again, fitting Genesis.

but it didn't reflect his deeper belief in a fully naturalistic process for life's emergence,

If you think a Creator is "fully naturalistic" then we've located the problem.

Mercy Shown said:
Things like the resurrection, the virgin birth, transubstantiation, etc. It is a very hodge-podge set of lets-go-with-science to no-lets-go-with-church-tradition.

Would be, if Newton, Darwin, et al actually did that. But as you see, they did not. You've confused a very useful method with faith and doctrine. Which is why ID is so hodge-podgey.

As you can see, you were incorrect in your assumption.

I see your denial. But the facts remain.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

You can die following what you believe. "Give me that screw driver. Don't worry, I flipped the breaker..."

I didn’t say we are all right or that there is no truth. But we all must decide what to believe.

 

[The Barbarian]

OH GOOD GRAVY!!! Newton wasn't even a Trinitarian in his 'Christian' beliefs.

Correct. Newton that that scripture had been later altered to present the notion of a Trinity. This didn't corrupt his science, however:

In late 1692 he answered pertinent questions sent to him by the scholar Richard Bentley regarding the implications for natural theology of the doctrines in the Principia. Bentley forced Newton to confront the fact that God was to all intents and purposes absent from the Principia

Newton’s Religious Life and Work

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, (the Principia), by Sir Isaac Newton published in 1687, outlines his laws of motion and universal gravitation. Critically important in science, it was a major advance in math and physics.

 

[The Barbarian]

Of course many Christians do. Should we put science down stream from the bible?

It is apart from the Bible, exactly as the knowledge that the Earth brought forth living things is apart from the way that it happened. Scripture only reveals that God made it happen, without revealing how.

 

[Mercy Shown]

I've read lots of his papers. None of them involve God in his work. Just as Darwin's belief in a Creator who made the first living things wasn't part of his scientific work. Both Darwin and Newton (and other competent scientists) realized that God is to great to fit into scientific inquiry.

Pierre Simon-Laplace (perhaps you've heard of him):
Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.
Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.
(Later when told by Napoleon about the incident, Lagrange commented: Ah, but that is a fine hypothesis. It explains so many things.)

French scientists seem to have a talent for sarcasm.

I gave you direct quotes from their work.

Yes. He thought God did it, using nature. That's what God says in Genesis.

Seems exactly contrary to what he said in On the Origin of Species. Is there a reason there's no citation supporting your claim?

No, he was referencing God in his works even though privately he had great reservations.

There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.
Charles Darwin

That there is much suffering in the world no one disputes. Which is more likely, that pain and evil are the result of an all-powerful and good God, or the product of uncaring natural forces? The presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.
Charles Darwin

The assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for his existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent deity.
Charles Darwin

Ole' Chuck was conflicted when it came to God.

Again, fitting Genesis.

If you think a Creator is "fully naturalistic" then we've located the problem.

No, you have proved it.

Would be, if Newton, Darwin, et al actually did that. But as you see, they did not. You've confused a very useful method with faith and doctrine. Which is why ID is so hodge-podgey.


I see your denial. But the facts remain.

I see your and claim raise you your denial.

 

[Mercy Shown]

It is apart from the Bible, exactly as the knowledge that the Earth brought forth living things is apart from the way that it happened. Scripture only reveals that God made it happen, without revealing how.

He spoke and it was so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nothing new under the sun.

But I would reframe it. The hunters have become the hunted. And they don't stand a chance.

I appreciate the humorous metaphor, but honestly, I'm not on the hunt for other Christians. The sad thing in all of this is that I didn't think I'd have to make apology to other, fellow Christians for my own personal faith.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Correct. Newton that that scripture had been later altered to present the notion of a Trinity. This didn't corrupt his science, however:

In late 1692 he answered pertinent questions sent to him by the scholar Richard Bentley regarding the implications for natural theology of the doctrines in the Principia. Bentley forced Newton to confront the fact that God was to all intents and purposes absent from the Principia

Newton’s Religious Life and Work

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, (the Principia), by Sir Isaac Newton published in 1687, outlines his laws of motion and universal gravitation. Critically important in science, it was a major advance in math and physics.

Yes, I'm already fully aware of all of that. Thank you!

But still, Mr. Mercy's analogy is flawed by using Isaac Newton----especially since I don't accept analogies used to buttress mere theism. He needs to realize that one can be a Christian and an evolutionist at the same time, and what's more...........NO ONE has to accept the later, manufactured assumption that the Bible is 'INERRANT,' especially not to be a Christian.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

He spoke and it was so.

Well, we THINK He spoke and it was so......................via the testimony of some ancient Hebrew writings that ..........well.............we all HOPE were written by Moses.

The truth is, we don't know, AND what's more, we don't know that Moses even existed. But, I digress. I'm willing to have 'faith' that at the very least, a guy named Moses actually did exist and lived and said a few important things. It's what historical plausibility allows me.

But enough of this turkey talk that says, "WE KNOW." No, we don't. Reality sort of sucks like, philosophically speaking. But at the end of the existential day, it is what it is, and I'm that guy who has the guts to say it as it is.

It's just that if none of us 'really knows,' then I think that's a reason to stay off of each others back and give each other some amount of breathing room in which each person can enjoy the Christian journey without being hammered by other Christians left and right.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is apart from the Bible, exactly as the knowledge that the Earth brought forth living things is apart from the way that it happened. Scripture only reveals that God made it happen, without revealing how.

He spoke and it was so.

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds.

Nope. Not poofed. The Earth brought forth living things.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, he was referencing God in his works even though privately he had great reservations.

There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.
Charles Darwin

This is precisely the claim you were making. Have you changed your mind? But Darwin said that much later. His acknowledgement that God created the first living things is the point.

 

[o_mlly]

You've confused theism with deism. Deism would be an issue with that, but not theistic evolution.

Deflection again? St. Thomas was a theist, which is why evolutionary theory would not be a problem for him. As you see, the theistic outlook of Thomist theology is consistent with theistic evolution.

Why are you being intellectually dishonest? Why do you repetitively use in your reply to me and others, the predicate, "As you can see ... " as if you have cited convincing evidence when you have not given such evidence? Why will you not cite in any of Thomas' writings showing that he supports macro-evolution? I have cited from his works that he did not. Methinks you are merely using banal, boring high school debating tactics.

Do you know the difference between philosophy and theology? It appears not.

 

[Mercy Shown]

This is precisely the claim you were making. Have you changed your mind? But Darwin said that much later. His acknowledgement that God created the first living things is the point.

Not until in the second edition to make the book more palatable for the readers of his day. Darwin made these changes in response to feedback and to manage the intense religious backlash his book generated.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Fine, I may not fully understand what your position is at the present moment.


Faith in Christ is a different epistemological and ontological structure than simply having trust that a bridge won't collapse when you drive over it or that a passenger plane will safely take off and land, especially if we're one of the passengers on board.

Let's not confuse these two different uses of the term "faith." They're not the same, and I didn't earn a degree in Philosophy so that I can be kowtowed by those who like to mish-mash their terms, their referents, and their denotations.

And NO. I don't have "faith" in my vast, diverse library. ......... but it does help.

Invoking your degree or library isn’t an argument. If the epistemological distinction you’re gesturing at matters here, explain why—without appeals to authority.