Friendly Question(s) to TEs

[vossler]

No. I believe He works naturally through evolution. Do you believe God works miraculously through rain? In your mind, why does God have to perform a miracle in order for us to attribute an action to Him? Did Jesus not say, "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign"?

So the evolutionary process is absent any micraculous events. That's what I wanted to know,thank you for answering.

I have no mind that requires God to perform at all, He is not at my beck and call, so I seek no such action or sign from Him whatsoever, never have.

Why??????? Haven't you read anything I've written so far? Why do you feel that God is only capable of acting through miracles? If there ever does come a day where we can fully explain nature through science (and that day seems to be getting closer), why do you feel this will necessarily exclude God? God is beyond science.

Again, I've made no such claim. My purpose here is to understand your position. I don't exclude God from anything. God is far more than beyond science, He is beyond all that we could ever imagine.

 

[vossler]

I believe God works providentially through evolution. I don't have good reason to think He works miraculously through it. I think you'll find that most (maybe not all) TEs hold this view.

How do you substantiate this view? I've heard TEs claim that all evolutionists believe the same thing. If you believe God works providentially, doesn't that automatically mean unnaturally?

 

[Mallon]

So the evolutionary process is absent any micraculous events. That's what I wanted to know,thank you for answering.

Can you think of ANY scientific explanation that uses miracles to describe a process?

Again, I've made no such claim. My purpose here is to understand your position. I don't exclude God from anything.

You seem to continuously make the fatal (well, not really) assumption that because TEs look to scientific explanations of natural phenomena rather than miraculous ones, that rules God out of the equation. Rather, we see God as the Creator of the equation, and to see evolution in action is to see God's creation working as He intended it.

 

[Willtor]

How do you substantiate this view? I've heard TEs claim that all evolutionists believe the same thing. If you believe God works providentially, doesn't that automatically mean unnaturally?

Evolution is evolution, one way or another. What we observe is what we observe. Whether all evolutionists think the same; of course not. We are all learning and growing in understanding. Some of us (most of all, myself) are way behind the curve and trying to catch up.

However, your question about substantiation has little to do with evolution, proper. It is not that anybody observed evolution and said, "this is from God." Rather, most of us hold the view that nothing happens apart from Him and concluded, therefore, that what we observed was from God. Now, we are down to the possibilities of miracle and providence. Here's how I'm semantically using those terms:

Providence: The work and care of God through natural processes. How this corresponds to His foreknowledge and questions of determinism is a matter of further theological discussion. I hold views on such theology, but I'm not going to address those in OT.

Miracle: The work of God through the suspension (instantaneous or prolonged) of natural processes.

Now, the term, "miracle," is often used in other ways in our everyday dialogue. The birth of a child is said to be "miraculous." However, in a precise setting, I would use the word, "providential." We know a lot about how a child is born, how it undergoes gestation within the mother, how it was initially conceived, etc. exclusively using natural descriptions. However, the presence of natural means does not negate the presence of God. Quite the contrary. If you get nothing else from this post: The presence of natural means presupposes the presence of God. The world persists on His Word.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

If you believe God works providentially, doesn't that automatically mean unnaturally?

It would, if nature had its source in something other than God. TEs believe that God is the creator of nature, though.

 

[vossler]

Can you think of ANY scientific explanation that uses miracles to describe a process?

I don't really spend much time thinking about scientific processes, so I'm not in a position to answer that question.

You seem to continuously make the fatal (well, not really) assumption that because TEs look to scientific explanations of natural phenomena rather than miraculous ones, that rules God out of the equation. Rather, we see God as the Creator of the equation, and to see evolution in action is to see God's creation working as He intended it.

Any assumption I make I want and need clarification on to make sure I understand the position correctly. If I'm incorrect I can rest assure there will be many here to point that out. Since you're a TE I would assume that God is in the equation somewhere, however remote it may be. I'm not interested in making any sort of judgements that I wish to share on your points either, at least not yet.

 

[vossler]

Here's how I'm semantically using those terms:

Providence: The work and care of God through natural processes. How this corresponds to His foreknowledge and questions of determinism is a matter of further theological discussion. I hold views on such theology, but I'm not going to address those in OT.

Miracle: The work of God through the suspension (instantaneous or prolonged) of natural processes.

I've never heard providence described this way, quite fascinating. So according to you, God only works providentially through natural means, if it is anything else it then becomes a miracle.

So when God hardened Pharoah's heart, was that providential or miraculous?

 

[vossler]

It would, if nature had its source in something other than God. TEs believe that God is the creator of nature, though.

So in the beginning what happened, did God create or did he put the building blocks in place that facilitated creation? When does something become unnatural and how is that defined?

 

[Mallon]

I don't really spend much time thinking about scientific processes, so I'm not in a position to answer that question.

The answer is there are no scientific explanations that make use of miracles to explain natural phenomena. This is what makes science science. Science does not allow for supernatural explanations because it has no objective way of determining which are good and which are bad. Someone might claim God makes it rain; another person might claim Zeus makes it rain. But because "God" or "Zeus" are not measurable parameters, science cannot test these explanations. This is why science must stick to natural, observable means of explanation in order to remain objective. Unfortunately, this basic understanding of what science is eludes most creationists.

 

[Willtor]

I've never heard providence described this way, quite fascinating. So according to you, God only works providentially through natural means, if it is anything else it then becomes a miracle.

Nothing becomes anything, by my way of thinking. This is merely how I use these terms. Providence (in this context) is not a Biblical word. I think it's only used once, actually, and even then it's applied to an emperor and not to God (Acts 24:2).

So when God hardened Pharoah's heart, was that providential or miraculous?

I don't know. I think epistemology often makes it very hard to distinguish miracle from providence. In this case, I'd say there are probably good arguments either way, but only because (as I mentioned) I don't think distinguishing providence is a Biblical concept.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

So in the beginning what happened, did God create or did he put the building blocks in place that facilitated creation?

There were no building blocks to put into place, because at the point of nature's creation, there was God and God alone.

"All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:3, ESV)

When does something become unnatural and how is that defined?

A better question is when something becomes natural. First, nature must be created.

 

[steen]

...Do you believe, as gluadys does, there will come a day when all of nature can be explained via science and that creation could be solely an evolutionary process. This means to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that God isn't involved, right?

Well, I must correct you. yes, you are wrong. Science says nothing about whether God is involved or not. ALL Science would say is that there is a natural explanation for what we observe. Science in no way say that this is the only or absolute explanation and that there is no other explanation, not does science say God is not involved. Science merely says that there is no EVIDENCE of God's involvement and that there is evidence that the process could go as scientific evidence has shown.

Please be careful about what accusations you level against science. It is important to know what science actually says if you are going to discuss it.

 

[theFijian]

Please prove me and my belief wrong!

So basically you're asking TEs to prove to you that we believe in Intelligent Design?

Edit to add: You also expect us to promote a God of the Gaps theology?

 

[random_guy]

So basically you're asking TEs to prove to you that we believe in Intelligent Design?

Edit to add: You also expect us to promote a God of the Gaps theology?

You hit it right on the head. He thinks that we should be promoting ID and God of Gaps, which I said before, would bring more division than unity. Science is wonderful because anyone, whether they are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or atheist, can participate. It is blind to sex, religion, and gender. However, Vossler thinks that we should start creating false divisions by using science to promote one incorrect view.

From what I've seen, more often than not, it's the Creationists that tend to belittle others. Many think that scientists are part of some evil conspiracy to destroy Christianity, when in fact, there are many Christian scientists. They explain the Christian scientists as mislead by Satan. If that is not belittlement, then I have no idea what belittlement actually is.

 

[shernren]

I've never heard providence described this way, quite fascinating. So according to you, God only works providentially through natural means, if it is anything else it then becomes a miracle.

So when God hardened Pharoah's heart, was that providential or miraculous?

But the precise point is that it is so difficult to distinguish "providence" from miracle. Which did God use to harden Pharaoh's heart? Did God just zap him, or did God tweak the neurotransmitters in his brain? Whichever it is, we know that God did it. That much is clear. Whether He did it in a way that science is in a position to describe or not, is a problem of science, and casts no doubt on God's character.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=24782270&postcount=11

 

[shernren]

Many think that scientists are part of some evil conspiracy to destroy evolution, when in fact, there are many Christian scientists.

Uhh, I think a conspiracy to destroy evolution would really be evil, but I doubt that's what you meant. XD

 

[random_guy]

Uhh, I think a conspiracy to destroy evolution would really be evil, but I doubt that's what you meant. XD

Oh know, that's exactly what I meant. See, that's just how evil they are. Anyway, good catch, I did that to make sure people were reading my post.

 

[vossler]

You hit it right on the head. He thinks that we should be promoting ID and God of Gaps, which I said before, would bring more division than unity. Science is wonderful because anyone, whether they are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or atheist, can participate. It is blind to sex, religion, and gender. However, Vossler thinks that we should start creating false divisions by using science to promote one incorrect view.

I was hoping we might promote Jesus through science and not demote YECs in front of non-believers.

 

[vossler]

But the precise point is that it is so difficult to distinguish "providence" from miracle. Which did God use to harden Pharaoh's heart? Did God just zap him, or did God tweak the neurotransmitters in his brain? Whichever it is, we know that God did it. That much is clear. Whether He did it in a way that science is in a position to describe or not, is a problem of science, and casts no doubt on God's character.

As you say, it is difficult to distinguish, how can we categorically state that He didn't 'tweak the neurotransmitters' of plant and animal life. If one has to believe in evolution why not say God did the tweaking? Otherwise providence appears to be an escape for TEs to lump all unknowns into.

 

[theFijian]

I was hoping we might promote Jesus through science

How would we do this without resorting to a God of the Gaps theology (which is what your OP espouses)?