Evolution conflict and division

[Job 33:6]

I'm still following Thomas.

You're correct. Thomas did not allow the amoeba the potential to be the parent of either human beings nor any other vegetative or sentient creatures.

I do not follow the logic of your last sentence. Matter individualizes creatures. Populations are not individualized but collectives of some sort. Perhaps you can rephrase.

Aquinas does not require potency to be individualized in a single agent. Matter under an order of causes can receive new forms through successive generations of secondary causes, given that it is under divine providence. No individual organism contains a higher form in potency, yet nature as ordered does.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Your position is that if evolution is true then Christianity is false?

Not necessarily, only that the bible narrative needs a lot of retooling, reinterpretation and spiritualizing to shoehorn in evolution. But the bible alone is not Christianity because Christianity is based on an intimate relationship with God that does not require a perfect interpretation of the bible. I would posit that no man will stand before God and have gotten everything right about the bible.

I find it curious how theistic evolution is happy to accept such easily scientifically debunked things such as transfiguration, resurrections of the dead, humans possessing immortal spirits etc. And yet choke on evolution. Both evolutionists and Creationists rest their knowledge of origins on axioms they take for granted.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Now you're leaving Genesis and going off on a discussion about theology again. Paul isn't exegeting the text.

If you're not starting with the text, then we won't be able to agree. Notice how I am referring the Bible when I speak. Your position involves more theological extrapolation, which is a secondary question to what the text is originally describing.

Of course you would like to restrict the discussion strictly to Genesis because once the rest of the bible is considered your arguments fall apart pretty quickly.

I've already responded to this, and you essentially ignored me. I'll just copy my prior comments:

You said "The bible says death entered through Adam's fall but theistic evolution says "no, no, that is speaking of spiritual death." Darn that Paul for forgetting to add that modifier."

The onus is still on you to demonstrate where the Biblical text parts from its historical context. Otherwise, death before the fall is the historical default. And again, theology doesn't replace original context. That requires an assumption that Paul was attempting to exegete Genesis.

This is laughable. Do you really imagine that you can make a valid argument simply by saying it is so? Then the onus is on your to demonstrate that Paul was not including physical death when He said it came through Adam and passed onto all men. Your's is an attempt to introduce facts not in evidence.

Paul’s arc is explicit: death was not part of creation (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21–22). Through one man, Adam, death entered. Through one man, Christ, God redeems creation from death and restores humanity to its intended glory (Rom 8:19–23; 1 Cor 15:42–49).Also, consider some other passages by Paul on the matter of sin and death:

Romans 6:4-5, 7-8 ESV
[4] We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

[7] For one who has died has been set free from sin. [8] Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.

Paul obviously isn't talking about physical death here, as if he were a zombie that came out of the grave.

Or this one:
Romans 7:4, 9 ESV
[4] Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

[9] I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Sin came alive and then I died? I mean, Paul, you're writing this letter, what do you mean "I died"?

Or even in Romans 5:
Romans 5:14 ESV
[14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Death reigned from Adam to Moses. What, so people stopped dying after Moses?

It's pretty obvious that Paul isn't speaking in a concordant way. Paul is addressing spiritual realities, not biological events.

So we have a lot of issues with extrapolating his theology back to Genesis as though he were exegeting on the question of death before the fall.




This does not require that all physical death originated with Adam. The contrast concerns representative headship and the reign of death over humanity, not the biological history of all organisms. Paul himself speaks of death as something that “reigns,” something believers have already “died” to, and something that can be broken prior to resurrection. Resurrection answers human death under sin; it does not function as a claim about pre-human animal mortality. Reading that assumption into Paul goes beyond what his argument actually states.


What does the length of a “day” matter if the text isn’t describing material origins? I can organize a pizza in a day, assign toppings, slice it, and plate it, but that doesn’t tell anyone how long the dough or ingredients existed before I began. Genesis 1 works the same way: it orders and assigns functions without specifying the prior existence or creation of the material.



These aren’t textual or exegetical arguments, they’re personal assumptions about how God must communicate. No one ever reads Jesus’ parables and says, “This isn’t literal history; how can I trust it?” Truth can be conveyed without insisting on modern scientific description.


Correct. Which is why it is meaningless to argue that animals being created in a day is contradictory to theistic evolution, because the creation may very well be functional or otherwise involving the use of animals that are already there beforehand.


This is good up until the last sentence. The historical and cultural context of the Old Testament does not assume ex nihilo creation; there is no textual evidence for it anywhere in Israelite writings (or anywhere else in the broader ancient near east, in these times creation was functional or otherwise always included pre existing material). Yes, God speaks and things happen, but if the passage isn’t about material origins, what happens reflects ordering and purpose, not modern biological processes.

Sorry, but you did not make it to the end of Paul's argument. No one is saying the spiritual death is not part and parcel of Paul's teaching on death but to throw out physical death is to collapse Paul's argument completely. Lats take a look at the conclusion of Paul's argument.
Romans 8
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

The bondage to decay is speaking of the physical

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

The redemption of the body is physical


26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

In Romans 8, Paul is speaking of physical realities, not merely spiritual states. “Bondage to decay” refers to the material corruption and mortality that characterizes the created order. Creation itself was subjected to this condition and now awaits liberation, not escape.

The same framework governs verses 22–25. Creation groans, and believers groan with it, because redemption is incomplete. Though we possess the firstfruits of the Spirit, we do not yet possess what we hope for: the redemption of our bodies. That redemption is explicitly physical.

Creation is not waiting for spiritual resurrection. According to Paul, believers already share in new spiritual life. Hope, by definition, concerns what is not yet seen or possessed. What remains is bodily resurrection and the restoration of the material order. Thus the entire passage points forward to the physical renewal of both humanity and creation, not merely a spiritual consummation.

 

[Mercy Shown]

For some of us, the Bible being downstream is the existential, default position ....... and we have to decide whether to kick it to the curb and be atheists OR engage it, value it, and see that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior in it.

This is not germane to the discussion. Many sincere Christians have given themselves to Christ and still cling to evolution. They just don't think deeply about it. Christ is not going to check our origins card at the gates of heaven.

I agree that the Bible is downstream for "their" thinking, but this placement doesn't necessitate atheism. On the other hand, one doesn't have to be a Presuppositionalist and hold the Bible as both inerrant and in a 1st principle position in order to "believe."

No, Atheism is not necessary, it is just a lot more compatible with evolution

Those of us who believe [and/or have 'faith'] do so not merely because the bible says such and such (although that helps), we believe because the Holy Spirit draws us to Christ and aids us in "belief" of the Gospel testimony and facts.

Again, a separate thread. No one is or should judge your commitment to Christ or your standing with Him.

No they're truly and fully compartmentalized and they are so for specific reasons. Only the truly anal Presuppositionalists find it impossible to do this.

The logical have trouble with it also.

My comment about folks thinking that I Jerry-rigg a God in the Gaps approach wasn't specifically aimed at you. So, maybe don't take it personally? It was a general sort of statement. But I know, it's difficult to tell the full context when reading online.

I take nothing personally in these forums.

No one does. Reality is what bites us in the butt when we ignore it or mis-define it. Of course, it goes without saying that God, in His All-knowing being knows both Himself and His Creation. ................................... but I know neither all of Creation nor do I have a direct perception of God in His fullness. So, I play in the epistemic sandbox until I come across something substantial.

Again, who judges it as substantial?

 

[The Barbarian]

I find it curious how theistic evolution is happy to accept such easily scientifically debunked things such as transfiguration, resurrections of the dead, humans possessing immortal spirits etc. And yet choke on evolution.

You've been misled about that. Science will not and cannot rule out the supernatural.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Well then, if that's the case, you and I have nothing vastly important to argue about. Thanks for clarifying.

No we don't. This was just a spirited debate that I learned a lot from.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, Atheism is not necessary, it is just a lot more compatible with evolution

It's a lot more compatible with physics, too. For the same reason. I would think it would be obvious.

 

[The Barbarian]

Paul’s arc is explicit: death was not part of creation (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21–22). Through one man, Adam, death entered.

As God makes clear in Genesis, that death is spiritual, not physical. He tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam lives on physically for many years thereafer. If God is truthful, the death is not physical.

 

[Job 33:6]

Of course you would like to restrict the discussion strictly to Genesis because once the rest of the bible is considered your arguments fall apart pretty quickly.

This is laughable. Do you really imagine that you can make a valid argument simply by saying it is so? Then the onus is on your to demonstrate that Paul was not including physical death when He said it came through Adam and passed onto all men. Your's is an attempt to introduce facts not in evidence.

Paul’s arc is explicit: death was not part of creation (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21–22). Through one man, Adam, death entered. Through one man, Christ, God redeems creation from death and restores humanity to its intended glory (Rom 8:19–23; 1 Cor 15:42–49).Also, consider some other passages by Paul on the matter of sin and death:

Sorry, but you did not make it to the end of Paul's argument. No one is saying the spiritual death is not part and parcel of Paul's teaching on death but to throw out physical death is to collapse Paul's argument completely. Lats take a look at the conclusion of Paul's argument.
Romans 8
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

The bondage to decay is speaking of the physical

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

The redemption of the body is physical

26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

In Romans 8, Paul is speaking of physical realities, not merely spiritual states. “Bondage to decay” refers to the material corruption and mortality that characterizes the created order. Creation itself was subjected to this condition and now awaits liberation, not escape.

The same framework governs verses 22–25. Creation groans, and believers groan with it, because redemption is incomplete. Though we possess the firstfruits of the Spirit, we do not yet possess what we hope for: the redemption of our bodies. That redemption is explicitly physical.

Creation is not waiting for spiritual resurrection. According to Paul, believers already share in new spiritual life. Hope, by definition, concerns what is not yet seen or possessed. What remains is bodily resurrection and the restoration of the material order. Thus the entire passage points forward to the physical renewal of both humanity and creation, not merely a spiritual consummation.

You’re still making assumptions that go beyond what Paul actually argues. I'll copy my prior text from my last post.

You open your argument with something completely untrue. You state: "death was not part of creation (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21–22)" but in fact, neither passage says that. I'm not sure of anyone that actually believes that. Even most YECs acknowledge things like the death of plants or insects.

Paul’s Adam to Christ contrast does not require that all physical death in the created order originated with Adam. The contrast concerns representative headship and the reign of death over humanity, not the biological history of all organisms. Paul repeatedly describes death as something that reigns, something believers have already died to, and something whose power can be broken prior to bodily resurrection. Resurrection answers human death under sin; it does not function as a claim about pre-human animal mortality. Reading that assumption into Paul exceeds what his argument states.

Appealing to “bondage to decay” in Romans 8 also does not resolve this. Paul explicitly says that creation was subjected to futility by God, not by Adam:

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope (Rom 8:20).

Paul does not identify Adam as the agent of this subjection, nor does he say it began at the Fall. Romans 8 describes the future liberation of creation, not the origin of biological decay.

Some assume Adam’s death must have been bodily because Christ’s resurrection is bodily and Paul contrasts the two. But Paul’s typology is theological, not a literal biological claim. Adam represents humanity under sin, and Christ represents redeemed humanity. Bodily death is assumed for humans, but Paul never says that all death in creation began with Adam, nor does the typology require it.

What remains is a theological assumption being imposed onto Genesis rather than derived from it.

 

[Job 33:6]

You’re still making assumptions that go beyond what Paul actually argues. I'll copy my prior text from my last post.

You open your argument with something completely untrue. You state: "death was not part of creation (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21–22)" but in fact, neither passage says that. I'm not sure of anyone that actually believes that. Even most YECs acknowledge things like the death of plants or insects.

Paul’s Adam to Christ contrast does not require that all physical death in the created order originated with Adam. The contrast concerns representative headship and the reign of death over humanity, not the biological history of all organisms. Paul repeatedly describes death as something that reigns, something believers have already died to, and something whose power can be broken prior to bodily resurrection. Resurrection answers human death under sin; it does not function as a claim about pre-human animal mortality. Reading that assumption into Paul exceeds what his argument states.

Appealing to “bondage to decay” in Romans 8 also does not resolve this. Paul explicitly says that creation was subjected to futility by God, not by Adam:

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope (Rom 8:20).

Paul does not identify Adam as the agent of this subjection, nor does he say it began at the Fall. Romans 8 describes the future liberation of creation, not the origin of biological decay.

Some assume Adam’s death must have been bodily because Christ’s resurrection is bodily and Paul contrasts the two. But Paul’s typology is theological, not a literal biological claim. Adam represents humanity under sin, and Christ represents redeemed humanity. Bodily death is assumed for humans, but Paul never says that all death in creation began with Adam, nor does the typology require it.

What remains is a theological assumption being imposed onto Genesis rather than derived from it.

There are several additional difficulties with this theological approach as well. Romans 5:12 is explicitly human-centric: death is said to come to all men. The passage says nothing about the animal kingdom, and its argument does not require animal mortality to be in view at all. This is one of the more common and well-grounded exegetical objections.

Additionally, the fact that major Christian thinkers either explicitly affirmed animal mortality before the Fall or did not regard animal immortality as theologically necessary, figures such as Augustine, Origen, Thomas Aquinas, Gregory of Nyssa, and even Basil the Great, demonstrates that these texts were not historically read as settling the question. At minimum, they leave the issue ambiguous and open to interpretation.

The collective ambiguity alone is sufficient to caution against treating later theological constructions as determinative. It strengthens the case for returning to Old Testament exegesis in its own literary and historical context rather than resolving the question by appeal to Pauline typology.

Typology, after all, does not function as biological history. Paul’s appeal to Adam serves a soteriological purpose, not a zoological one, and therefore does not provide the conceptual resources needed to draw firm conclusions about animal immortality before the Fall. @Mercy Shown

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is not germane to the discussion. Many sincere Christians have given themselves to Christ and still cling to evolution. They just don't think deeply about it. Christ is not going to check our origins card at the gates of heaven.

Some of us have, and do, think about "it" deeply.................. but I'm not bothered by the fact that so many other fellow Christians are bothered by the theory of evolution.

No, Atheism is not necessary, it is just a lot more compatible with evolution

Not really. Philosophical Naturalists (i.e. atheists) are using a similar pattern of epistemic criteria as do those in the Intelligent Design camp---the difference is that one camp thinks they see significations of 'irreducible complexity" in nature, and the other firmly asserts that not only do they not see those same positive significations, but that they see structures in the universe which militate against the presence of a Divine Creator.

I happen to be in neither of the two camps just mentioned above...........

Again, a separate thread. No one is or should judge your commitment to Christ or your standing with Him.

I'm glad to hear you're on board with the 'no judging' side of things for those of us who are Christian and compartmentalize our Bibles from Hard Science. (For those out there in Web Land who don't understand this category separation, the analogy would be that it should be reasonable to separate a literary identification and reading of Shakespeare or Henry David Thoreau or American History from the field of Biology and its applications in our society. )

The logical have trouble with it also.

Some do. Some don't.

I take nothing personally in these forums.

That's good to know.

Again, who judges it as substantial?

The same one who just explained to you what he thinks reality "is" in an earlier post.

 

[o_mlly]

Some mutations are apparently irreducibly random. But that's not a problem for God, even if it discombobulates creationists.

Apparently irreducibly random only to finitely intelligent beings who do not yet know the controlling principles. Do you know why engineers still struggle to program a true random number?

Are not theist-evolutionists creationists too? Are you therefore discombobulated?

God can use contingency or necessity to effect His will.

Do you think that anything is really contingent to an omniscient being? Someone said that God does not play dice. He was right.

That wasn't Darwin's theory. Nor is it modern evolutionary theory...
... Mutations are random or chance events because (i) they are rare exceptions to the fidelity of the process of DNA replication and because (ii) there is no way of knowing ...

Shell game? So, I should always ask which version of evolution theory you're now referencing?

"No way of knowing ..." Perhaps for mortals. Did you know that "scientists" believed not too long ago that there was no way to forecast cosmic events? I think we used to call them astrologists instead of evolutionists.

And yet, guys like Michael Denton have tenure and keep their jobs.

Tenure provides only job security. Denis Noble also had tenure but chose to remain quiet until retirement for the sake of his staff knowing that the grant money that paid their salaries would quickly end. Did you read how quickly and viciously the evolutionists attacked him?

 

[o_mlly]

Aquinas does not require potency to be individualized in a single agent.

No, he doesn't but you apparently do. That's the point.

Matter under an order of causes can receive new forms through successive generations of secondary causes, given that it is under divine providence. No individual organism contains a higher form in potency, yet nature as ordered does.

Still a bit confusing.

Whose order of causes? Please use an active voice and restate "... can receive new forms through successive generations" so we can better understand your inferred causation. Also, "Nature as ordered ..." leaves me wondering who ordered nature? If you mean God then, as He is outside His creation, His orders are not natural but supernatural.

 

[The Barbarian]

Apparently irreducibly random only to finitely intelligent beings who do not yet know the controlling principles.

God knows what's behind quantum randomness. We don't. It's not a matter of being smart enough. Built into the universe.
Quantum randomness, however, presents a fundamentally different unpredictability, arising from the universe’s smallest scales. Unlike classical pseudo-randomness, which is generated by deterministic algorithms and is predictable if the initial seed is known, quantum randomness is truly inherent.

Do you know why engineers still struggle to program a true random number?

No longer:

We’ve finally cracked how to make truly random numbers​

We’ve finally cracked how to make truly random numbers

From machine learning to voting, the workings of the world demand randomisation, but true sources of randomness are surprisingly hard to find. Now quantum mechanics has supplied the answer

www.newscientist.com

Are not theist-evolutionists creationists too?

Yes, but we're O.K. with the way God did it.

Do you think that anything is really contingent to an omniscient being?

Since none of us are omniscient, it doesn't matter. See above.

So, I should always ask which version of evolution theory you're now referencing?

Forget the creationist version. As you see, the real version is consistent and (as even honest YE creationists admit) useful. I suggested that you show us which of the four point of Darwin's theory have been refuted, and you couldn't come up with even one. I assume you've since looked up what those points are. If you have, you now realize that they've all been confirmed by subsequent evidence.

No way of knowing ..." Perhaps for mortals. Did you know that "scientists" believed not too long ago that there was no way to forecast cosmic events?

Astrophysics was fairly late to arrive. But here we are. There have always been people who thought that evidence wasn't required if the reasoning worked.

I think we used to call them astrologists

Today, we call them IDer. Not too many years ago, IDer and Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Behe admitted under oath that ID is a science in the same sense that astrology is a science. So apparently, those guys are still with it.

Tenure provides only job security.

And the fact that those guys retain tenure even denying evolutionary theory, pretty much disposes of the "academic conspiracy" story.

Did you read how quickly and viciously the evolutionists attacked him?

Like the guy who "discovered" cold fusion. Same reason. They went after Alfred Wegener, for his theory that continents moved, too. Because Wegener couldn't show how it happens. Then, when the mechanism was discovered, everyone accepted the idea. I was in college at the time. I was an exciting time for geologists. The issue is that Wegener made testable claims, that when verified, convinced scientists. ID makes no testable claims, as noted in the Dover Trial. So unlikely to ever be accepted as real science. More like astrology, as IDer Michael Behe admitted.

Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.

The testimony:

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.

 

[Job 33:6]

No, he doesn't but you apparently do. That's the point.

Still a bit confusing.

Whose order of causes? Please use an active voice and restate "... can receive new forms through successive generations" so we can better understand your inferred causation. Also, "Nature as ordered ..." leaves me wondering who ordered nature? If you mean God then, as He is outside His creation, His orders are not natural but supernatural.

"If God is outside His creation, His orders are not natural but supernatural."

I think that has been our key point of dispute or contention for awhile now. God causes things to act according to their natures. He is the cause. Natural, established and sustained by God.

Aquinas explicitly rejects the idea that God’s governance displaces natural causality. God acts in all causes as First Cause, while creatures act as true secondary causes according to their natures. To treat God’s ordering of nature as non-natural is to deny Aquinas’s distinction between primary and secondary causation.

 

[o_mlly]

God knows what's behind quantum randomness. We don't

God knows how life began. God also knows how human beings began. Materialists don't.

No longer:

We’ve finally cracked how to make truly random numbers​

We’ve finally cracked how to make truly random numbers

From machine learning to voting, the workings of the world demand randomisation, but true sources of randomness are surprisingly hard to find. Now quantum mechanics has supplied the answer

www.newscientist.com

Sorry, no brass ring for this effort. The article summarizes but does not give the code. The downloadable files do not provide the extensions that would identify the app necessary to open them. Were you able to access the code?

But you have a logic problem: Above you write that God knows what's behind quantum randomness. So, the cause of that effect is real and knowable and, therefore, not random. That we do not know (yet) does not change that fact.

Yes, but we're O.K. with the way God did it.

Of course I am. When I next talk with Him, I'll let Him know that you're onboard as well.

Since none of us are omniscient, it doesn't matter. See above.

One of us is Omniscient. So it does matter. Contingency is only real in ignorant minds. Ergo, contingency is not real.

Astrophysics was fairly late to arrive. But here we are. There have always been people who thought that evidence wasn't required if the reasoning worked.

Rationalists have valid points. So do empiricists. But you're not an empiricist, are you?

Today, we call them IDer. Not too many years ago, IDer and Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Behe admitted under oath that ID is a science in the same sense that astrology is a science. So apparently, those guys are still with it.

Yes. Intelligent Design is not entirely materialistic. The reason, same as the Origin of Life problem, is that materialists have failed to explain what has been observed.

And the fact that those guys retain tenure even denying evolutionary theory, pretty much disposes of the "academic conspiracy" story.

You didn't read what I posted, did you? I note that the SOP for materialists when their secular religion is questioned is to become quite nasty.

Like the guy who "discovered" cold fusion. Same reason.

Nope. More like Newton when asked to explain gravity. "Hypotheses non fingo". Of course, that was before God was to be ignored in the search for truths about nature.

 

[River Jordan]

Not necessarily, only that the bible narrative needs a lot of retooling, reinterpretation and spiritualizing to shoehorn in evolution. But the bible alone is not Christianity because Christianity is based on an intimate relationship with God that does not require a perfect interpretation of the bible. I would posit that no man will stand before God and have gotten everything right about the bible.

I find it curious how theistic evolution is happy to accept such easily scientifically debunked things such as transfiguration, resurrections of the dead, humans possessing immortal spirits etc. And yet choke on evolution. Both evolutionists and Creationists rest their knowledge of origins on axioms they take for granted.

I'm happy to see you aren't saying evolution negates Christianity.

 

[The Barbarian]

God also knows how human beings began. Materialists don't.

The Church knows...
While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

Are you a materialist?

Scientists now know how to produce truly random numbers.

Sorry, no brass ring for this effort. The article summarizes but does not give the code.

The final retreat of the YE creationist "They are lying!!! They are all lying!!"
Nice try.

But you have a logic problem: Above you write that God knows what's behind quantum randomness. So, the cause of that effect is real and knowable and, therefore, not random.

What is truly random for us, is not for Him. You persist in seeing Him as subject to creation.

One of us is Omniscient.

God is not one of us. He is not just greater. Different category entirely.

Yes. Intelligent Design is not entirely materialistic.

Not at all materialistic. It's a religious doctrine.

The reason, same as the Origin of Life problem, is that materialists have failed to explain what has been observed.

So far, all the evidence points to God being correct in saying that the earth brought forth living things. Why would that surprise you?

You didn't read what I posted, did you?

You made a foolish claim. I pointed out counter-examples, including one from my own experience in university. C'mon.

More like Newton when asked to explain gravity. "Hypotheses non fingo".

But of course, he did hypothesize. Before he gathered in his data, gravitation was merely a hypothesis, not a theory.
Newton’s insight was that Earth’s gravity might extend as far as the Moon and produce the force required to curve the Moon’s path from a straight line and keep it in its orbit. He further hypothesized that gravity is not limited to Earth, but that there is a general force of attraction between all material bodies. If so, the attractive force between the Sun and each of the planets could keep them in their orbits.

Once Newton boldly hypothesized that there was a universal attraction among all bodies everywhere in space, he had to determine the exact nature of the attraction. The precise mathematical description of that gravitational force had to dictate that the planets move exactly as Kepler had described them to (as expressed in Kepler’s three laws). Also, that gravitational force had to predict the correct behavior of falling bodies on Earth, as observed by Galileo. How must the force of gravity depend on distance in order for these conditions to be met?

The answer to this question required mathematical tools that had not yet been developed, but this did not deter Isaac Newton, who invented what we today call calculus to deal with this problem. Eventually he was able to conclude that the magnitude of the force of gravity must decrease with increasing distance between the Sun and a planet (or between any two objects) in proportion to the inverse square of their separation. In other words, if a planet were twice as far from the Sun, the force would be (1/2)2, or 1/4 as large. Put the planet three times farther away, and the force is (1/3)2, or 1/9 as large.

Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation |

courses.lumenlearning.com

It wasn't a theory until he tested his hypothesis and verified it with evidence.

Of course, that was before God was to be ignored in the search for truths about nature.

Science is too weak a method to utilize faith and the supernatural. And yet as Newton and Darwin demonstrated, it works. ID attempts a system incorporating faith. But as you have seen, it doesn't work. And that's the key. If ID worked, scientists would use it, no matter who objected. But since it doesn't work, they don't use it.

 

[o_mlly]

Are you a materialist?

Yes. But I am also a spiritualist. It's not an either/or proposition. As Cardinal Ratzinger points out:

​

Now let us go directly to the question of evolution and its mechanisms. Microbiology and biochemistry have brought revolutionary insights here. They are constantly penetrating deeper into the inmost mysteries of life … But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before.​

"In the Beginning...." A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall

Pope Benedict on Evolution and Creationism, God the Creator, Difference Between Form and Content, Unity of the Bible, True God vs. false gods, Creation of the Human Being, Image of God, Creation and Evolution, A Creating Reason and Intelligence, Behold the Man

www.catholicbridge.com

The final retreat of the YE creationist "They are lying!!! They are all lying!!"

Well, where did that vile attribution come from? Perhaps it's time for a cup of tea and some doggie petting?

What is truly random for us, is not for Him. You persist in seeing Him as subject to creation.

Nope. In reality there is no random event in His creation, and only the present state of human ignorance on the matter causes the appearance of randomness. From those facts, it does not follow that God is subject to anything. Care to try again?

But of course, he did hypothesize. Before he gathered in his data, gravitation was merely a hypothesis, not a theory.

You miss Newton's point. Newton admits his ignorance. When Newton discovered the law of gravity, he was asked, "What is gravity?" He replied "Hypotheses non fingo." I have feigned no hypothesis, i.e., I don't know.

Science is too weak a method to utilize faith and the supernatural.

Good. You're making progress.

And yet as Newton and Darwin demonstrated, it works. ID attempts a system incorporating faith.

... and sadly you regress. ID does not posit a god, or most certainly God. It does propose an immaterial and transcendent intelligence with evidence and rational argumentation. You really ought to check it out.

 

[The Barbarian]

As Cardinal Ratzinger points out:

While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

Cardinal Ratzinger chaired the commission that says human evolution from a distant common ancestor of all living things on Earth is virtually certain. You agree with him, now?

Well, where did that vile attribution come from?

Your denial of documented evidence.
What is truly random for us, is not for Him.

Nope.

You persist in seeing Him as subject to creation. God is not one of us. He is not just greater. Different category entirely.

Nope. In reality there is no random event in His creation, and only the present state of human ignorance on the matter causes the appearance of randomness.

God disagrees with you.
Ecclesiastes 9:ll I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skilful: but time and chance in all.

I believe Him. You should, too.

When Newton discovered the law of gravity,

Newton proposed a theory of gravitation. Kepler's laws predict the effects of gravity, but do not explain how it works. Laws predict but do not explains. Theories predict, and explain. Hence Kepler's laws and Newton's theory. The laws accurately described how planets move around the Sun. The theory explains why it works that way.

None of this fits the ID doctrine. As I've repeatedly reminded you, science is too weak a method to utilize faith and the supernatural. And yet as Newton and Darwin demonstrated, it works. ID attempts a system incorporating faith. But as you have seen, it doesn't work. And that's the key. If ID worked, scientists would use it, no matter who objected. But since it doesn't work, they don't use it.

ID does not posit a god, or most certainly God.

Most do. But some say that maybe he's a "space alien." Michael Denton only perceives a teleological force, a sort of deistic concept. They simply replace God with a "designer."

The decision in the Dover trial showed that ID is merely an attempt to sneak YE creationism into public schools. One of the most embarrassing moments was when a supposed "ID textbook" was shown to include a typo that exposed it as a YE creationist work, edited to make it appear to have been written by an IDer.