Friendly Question(s) to TEs

[vossler]

Well, I must correct you. 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.

Well the way I see it if God did it He'd want people to know that He is responsible and not allow it to be hidden in something that can't be directly attributed to Him like evolution.

is important to know what science actually says if you are going to discuss it.

I make a deduction and ask for corroboration and it gets labeled as an accusation. Go figure.

 

[theFijian]

Well the way I see it if God did it He'd want people to know that He is responsible and not allow it to be hidden in something that can't be directly attributed to Him like evolution.

So basically your beef isn't with evolution per se, but with methodological naturalism? You do know it's not the same thing as metaphysical naturalism don't you? You do understand why methodological natutalism is the only way we make scientific progess right?

 

[vossler]

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

At one time I thought this was possible for a TE to do, but from what I've read here I see it isn't.

 

[theFijian]

At one time I thought this was possible for a TE to do, but from what I've read here I see it isn't.

That's because the only way you can do it is by using a God of the Gaps theology. Unless how as a Creationist you can do so (without using God of the gaps theology.)

 

[gluadys]

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?

Stand corrected then. That is not at all what it means.

Like Mallon, I believe God is always involved in all processes, natural and miraculous.

Natural =/= godless. Natural=/="god isn't involved."

It is conceding to atheism to see "natural" as excluding the involvement of God.

 

[gluadys]

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

Absolutely not. "Providence" refers to God's daily care of his creatures and is most often not miraculous but natural. It is God ensuring that seedtime and harvest, summer and winter follow in their due course, that the rains come in their seasons, that lilies bloom and birds are fed, etc.

Occasionally God may provide through a miracle, as he provided manna in the wilderness, but most of the time God provides through natural means.

 

[random_guy]

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

Please tell us how to incorporate God into science without using God of Gaps. Should we point out to scientists that since they don't know how chlorophyll formed exactly, God did it? Should we point out that due to how amazingly complicated a system is, God designed it?

Second, should we also not demote Christians who think that we never landed on the Moon? Should we not berate Christians who think that gravity is false? It is our duty to correct wrong ideas, regardless of the person's religion, gender, or race. If not, how can we stop ignorance.

Finally, I find it funny that you think correcting false science is wrong, but demoting other Christians infront of Christians is okay. I'm sure that's the kind of image we want to present.

"If people do not accept pseudoscience, they're bad Christians."

That'll definitely win over scientists, college graduates, and educated folks.

 

[steen]

According to Gallup that isn't true.

Hmm, perhaps you were not aware that creationism, while not exclusively, is mostly an American phenomenon.
Most Christians are NOT YEC or creationists of any kind to begin with.

Most Christians are not creationists.

If I recall my response was to your 'one-liner' of "It has been" so I'm really not sure how you would deduce an ad hominem reply by me saying "I'm glad your confident of that"

Do you think that cute sophistry is helping you here in any way?

You are the only one that appears upset.

Nah. Challenging false witnessing is not upsetting.

 

[steen]

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

When YEC are outright lying, then they detract from Jesus to non-believers. The conclusion I frequently see is that "Christians lie."

Challenging the lies of creationists is re-establishing the credibility of Christianity in the eyes of the non-believer.

 

[vossler]

Please tell us how to incorporate God into science without using God of Gaps. Should we point out to scientists that since they don't know how chlorophyll formed exactly, God did it? Should we point out that due to how amazingly complicated a system is, God designed it?

Hey I'm not the evolutionist, I'm just trying to find a way for you guys to bring God into creation.

Second, should we also not demote Christians who think that we never landed on the Moon? Should we not berate Christians who think that gravity is false? It is our duty to correct wrong ideas, regardless of the person's religion, gender, or race. If not, how can we stop ignorance.

How can you biblically justify berating a fellow believer?

Finally, I find it funny that you think correcting false science is wrong, but demoting other Christians infront of Christians is okay. I'm sure that's the kind of image we want to present.

I've never said correcting false science was wrong, this place is full of people who wish for me to say things they would like for me to have said.

"If people do not accept pseudoscience, they're bad Christians."

Great, a quote to imply I said something that you again wanted me to say, but unfortunately didn't.

 

[theFijian]

Hey I'm not the evolutionist, I'm just trying to find a way for you guys to bring God into creation.

I see the game you're trying to play, because we don't believe in 'God of the Gaps' like you think we should you think we don't believe God had anything to do with Creation. Cute, if a little devious.

 

[steen]

Well the way I see it if God did it He'd want people to know that He is responsible and not allow it to be hidden in something that can't be directly attributed to Him like evolution.

Ah, so it is the entire Scientific Method and all of the resulting science you disagree with. That is a fascinating argument, but hardly one that has any relevance in a world essentially "made" by science. The Computer you are using is made through scientific principles and discoveries without giving glory to God. So per your argument, we should reject the computer as not giving glory to God, f.ex.

I frankly don't see that your argument against all of science in any way is reasonable or even remotely practical or reasonable in the world we live in.

I make a deduction and ask for corroboration and it gets labeled as an accusation. Go figure.

No, you tried to claim that once science had explained everything, it would also have rejected God. This is a false claim, as I showed. You trying to hide this as a "deduction," esp. when you also claim to have some knowledge about science , is frankly not making any sense at all, again beginning to look strongly like pure sophistry, like argument for the sake of argument.

 

[vossler]

Go to the creation/evolution debate forum, and you will see it many times daily.

Give me a link and prove it. Since it happens many times daily that should be rather simple to do.

To witness something, as in observing is not the same as spiritual witnessing as in spreading the gospel.

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying.

I don't have a problem calling a brother on bearing false witness. Do you call that belittling?

If that's what you wish to believe.

Do you think that cute sophistry is helping you here in any way?

Contrary to your claim, I'm not very sophisticated.

Hmm, you seem to have abandoned your previous position, and now distancing yourself from it. That's fine with me.

If you believe so, then I suppose you've been edified.

By your claims about science. None of them are in the least accurate, and some of them are outright misrepresentations. So yes, you have no clue about science. The other possibility is to unpalatable to contemplate.

I've made no claims about science.

Nah. Challenging false witnessing is not upsetting.

That's good to know.

 

[theFijian]

Give me a link and prove it. Since it happens many times daily that should be rather simple to do.

This is dad on a good day: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=24726030&postcount=71

 

[theFijian]

I've made no claims about science.

On the contrary, you stated in your OP that there are somethings that cannot be explained by evolution and therefore can only be explained by God; clarification that you do espouse 'God of the Gaps' theology. Very shaky ground theologically.

 

[vossler]

I see the game you're trying to play, because we don't believe in 'God of the Gaps' like you think we should you think we don't believe God had anything to do with Creation. Cute, if a little devious.

You guys give me far more credit than I deserve. I haven't a clue what TEs truly base their beliefs on, I was just looking for a way to get you guys focused on the non-believer when you're in the C&E forum instead of the believer.

 

[steen]

Give me a link and prove it. Since it happens many times daily that should be rather simple to do.

others obviously beat me to it regarding Dad. Also look at posts by JohnR7 and Pittguy579.

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying.

OK.

If that's what you wish to believe.

Ah, more sophistry.

Contrary to your claim, I'm not very sophisticated.

I can't even believe this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophistry

I've made no claims about science.

This simply is not true.

 

[steen]

You guys give me far more credit than I deserve. I haven't a clue what TEs truly base their beliefs on, I was just looking for a way to get you guys focused on the non-believer when you're in the C&E forum instead of the believer.

We are not focusing on believers vs non-believers in the C&E. We are focused on Scientific Evidence vs false witnessing.

 

[vossler]

others obviously beat me to it regarding Dad. Also look at posts by JohnR7 and Pittguy579.

Unfortunately that gun wasn't loaded.

I can't even believe this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophistry

If this were true I would be playing to an audience of my peers, yet all who post and most who visit are in fact against me. Hardly a basis for sophistry as you put it.

This simply is not true.

As you wish to believe.

 

[Willtor]

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.

No, but since we believe that God created nature (with all of its various laws), we treat providence as the general case and miracle as the exception. This is not so unreasonable because if providence is not the general case, why create nature at all? Even if you don't think nature exists as a physical reality (apropos Bishop Berkeley and Idealism), providence is still the general rule. Basically, attributing the consistency of the world to providence is an old, old idea. It's one of the things that permitted science to rise out of natural philosophy.

It's easy to see where the idea of providence fits in with Christian theology, though. Again, it would be difficult for a Christian to say that God is not present in every work of the world. But if the cosmos acts in consistent ways, what will we call that consistency? Not something which is autonomous. But not something which is puppeteer'ed, either. The solution that Aquinas proposed was that God moves nature, even as nature moves itself. This is not presupposed by Scripture, but it is consistent with it.

Thus, you might see why TEs are confused(?) by Christians who reject the findings of science. If the word, "naturalism," in the term, "methodological naturalism," bothers you, simply think of it as "God's providential activity" expressed in a way that is friendly to Atheists.

---

Finally, for application of providence vs. application of miracle, it is typically parsimonious to say that it is providence. If we are wrong, then we are wrong. But it is still from God, so at least we have the correct source. If we call it miracle but it was actually providence, then there is no question of trying to understand it apart from its purpose. If you are a social worker and see various young, unwed mothers, you can argue that perhaps they are the products of virgin births. It has been known to happen. But I think you will agree that it is not the general case, and that it won't help us to consider the possibility every time we see a young, unwed mother. It would take exceptional circumstances to lead us to consider that possibility. Again, not that the next young, unwed mother who walks into your office is not the recipient of miraculous reproductive occurrences. It would be unexpected.