How Have You resolved the Creationism vs Evolution Debate?

[Ration]

I'm a deist. So this entail me believing that a being (call it god) set the universe in motion and continues to watch it. HOWEVER, he interferes in no way, and everything that has happened since the beggining he has had no hand in.

 

[Greg1234]

God has guided my life in many entirely natural ways, and God made me through entirely understood biological processes.

Ultimately physical, "natural" science in its reigning anti-spiritual philosophy will reach a road block in endeavors and sulk and stagnate. Or it will traverse in the realization that the spiritual foundation is there for a purpose, that geology respects micro biology, not try to usurp it.

For now though physical science is heading towards God. But religion is already there. That's the difference.

 

[Ration]

Ultimately physical, "natural" science in its reigning anti-spiritual philosophy will reach a road block in endeavors and sulk and stagnate. Or it will traverse in the realization that the spiritual foundation is there for a purpose, that geology respects micro biology, not try to usurp it.

For now though physical science is heading towards God. But religion is already there. That's the difference.

Science is not anti-spiritual, if anything it is the opposite. However one does not have to believe in a god to be spiritual.

 

[gluadys]

IOW, at the time Lamarck wrote it was a scientific given that changes in inorganic nature (physical, chemical, geological changes) did not require specific miraculous interposition. God does not have to call up each thunderstorm or rainbow individually. These things happen through understandable natural processes.

These "things" are dictated by an underlying supernatural law.

Of course. I don't think Lamarck or Darwin were disputing that. They were extending the application of the same principle to organic life.

We have an understandable biological process that gives rise to biological change and diversity.

But underlying that is supernatural law.

Science deals with the observable process.
It doesn't deal with the underlying supernatural law.

That is the case whether the science is astronomy, meterology, chemistry, geology or biology.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Please note:

Non-Christians are not allowed to post in this forum.

If you are non-Christian and want to discuss creationism vs evolution, please go to the Creation/Evolution forum under Physical & Life Sciences in the Society category.

 

[gluadys]

I'm a deist. So this entail me believing that a being (call it god) set the universe in motion and continues to watch it. HOWEVER, he interferes in no way, and everything that has happened since the beggining he has had no hand in.

Yes, that is my understanding of the Deist approach.

And that is why I see anti-evolution creationists as quasi-Deists.
They seem to think the same thing except for granting that God occasionally intervenes with miracles.

As an evolutionary creationist, I believe God has a hand in all natural processes at all times, but this is not "interference". As I see it, God is always actively present in creation, not merely an observer who may or may not sometimes intervene.

 

[Greg1234]

Of course. I don't think Lamarck or Darwin were disputing that. They were extending the application of the same principle to organic life.

We have an understandable biological process that gives rise to biological change and diversity.

But underlying that is supernatural law.

Science deals with the observable process.
It doesn't deal with the underlying supernatural law.

That is the case whether the science is astronomy, meterology, chemistry, geology or biology.

No you theorize that it does. It's limited intelligent adaptation.

 

[Greg1234]

Science is not anti-spiritual, if anything it is the opposite.

We're talking about physical science. Why do so many scientists endorse Evolution? • ChristianAnswers.Net

Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31:
​

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.​

However one does not have to believe in a god to be spiritual.

God is spirit.

 

[One_In_Christ]

I would like to hear from those who believe there are "gaps" in the sound scientific theories of Darwinism and the like. Perhaps they are not so sound as we think. How tight is the logic, and where are the points of assumption that may be misleading to the final conclusions?
PS -- Thanks to Papias for your comments. I am relieved to know that my own salvation through Christ is solid, regardless of which interpretation (literal or figurative) I take the text. Salvation is not dependent on our resolution of the "how" of the Genesis account of Creation of Life. It is dependent on Christ alone, and our acceptance of His gift of salvation via the Atonement.

 

[One_In_Christ]

Greg1234 --- Your comments are inspiring. I somehow think there will be an "elegant" proof that will be given (in this life, or the next) --- akin to an elegant and brief mathematical proof of a theorem. I am waiting to see it, or hear it..

 

[Incariol]

The matter is quite simple: evolution happens.

 

[One_In_Christ]

Yes, but there is this matter of "the Divine" that I cannot see as something that evolves. If God is immutable, then He did not evolve. Plus, He is (by definition) Omnipresent (also indicating He did not "evolve"). The Genesis account says that God (The Trinity, indicated by verbage.... "Let US create man in our image"). Could this possibly mean that "the Divine" was imparted to Adam, and therefore Adam was NOT a product of evolution theory?

 

[One_In_Christ]

It's been said before, but it struck me as rather awesome when I first heard it ----- a reference to the miracle of Creation that was mirrored in Jesus' first miracle, i.e., the miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in (Canaan?).

Water contains two elements in the basic molecule (Hydrogen and Oxygen). Alcohol (the wine) is an organic compound and therefore must contain a Carbon atom, as all organic compounds do. We must assume that Jesus created the carbon atoms, and the alcohol molecule in the making of the wine ------ and since this was his first miracle of his ministry, it is a statement of his Divinity and the confirmation that He was there as the Co-Creator of the Universe and the world (with the Father and the Holy Spirit).

It was just as straightforward to create wine as it was to create Adam. Both were miracles, and God was quite modest in demonstrating this awesome event, with eye witnesses to attest to it.

How do you like that, Greg1234?
I love it !!

 

[Incariol]

It's been said before, but it struck me as rather awesome when I first heard it ----- a reference to the miracle of Creation that was mirrored in Jesus' first miracle, i.e., the miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in (Canaan?).

Water contains two elements in the basic molecule (Hydrogen and Oxygen). Alcohol (the wine) is an organic compound and therefore must contain a Carbon atom, as all organic compounds do. We must assume that Jesus created the carbon atoms, and the alcohol molecule in the making of the wine ------ and since this was his first miracle of his ministry, it is a statement of his Divinity and the confirmation that He was there as the Co-Creator of the Universe and the world (with the Father and the Holy Spirit).

It was just as straightforward to create wine as it was to create Adam. Both were miracles, and God was quite modest in demonstrating this awesome event, with eye witnesses to attest to it.

How do you like that, Greg1234?
I love it !!

It doesn't make any sense. We are talking about Evolution, not the Wedding at Cana.

 

[Keachian]

I have no idea where you get the notion that Creationists are deists but it's absurd. I am a young earth creationist by default which means I will maintain that view unless or until I am persuaded otherwise. I went through a transition as well and it when from core conviction, sound doctrine, exposition, apologetics and finally creationism and other intellectual pursuits. What is more I'm an evolutionist as well differing from atheistic materialists only with regards to the time and means of evolution.

Have a nice day
Mark

Where did I say all creationists are deists?

 

[artybloke]

Yes, but there is this matter of "the Divine" that I cannot see as something that evolves. If God is immutable, then He did not evolve.

Unless God is the universe, then why does this stop the universe from evolving?

Could this possibly mean that "the Divine" was imparted to Adam, and therefore Adam was NOT a product of evolution theory?

Maybe you're reading more into scripture than is actually there? Unless by 'image' you mean that we're 'physically' like God, which would be odd, considering that God is not physical, but spiritual. So it seems that we're 'spiritually' made in the image of God; but physically, we're apes.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Yes, but there is this matter of "the Divine" that I cannot see as something that evolves. If God is immutable, then He did not evolve.

Of course not. God does not change. God is not a creature or part of the universe (apart from the Incarnation of course). Evolution deals with created things, those which are creatures, created, material, natural and organic. God is God, not a creature.

Plus, He is (by definition) Omnipresent (also indicating He did not "evolve"). The Genesis account says that God (The Trinity, indicated by verbage.... "Let US create man in our image"). Could this possibly mean that "the Divine" was imparted to Adam, and therefore Adam was NOT a product of evolution theory?

Again, of course God doesn't evolve. God isn't a creature. However the "image and likeness of God" should probably be understood contextually here as Genesis 1 functions in part as a Temple narrative--mankind is God's image which He has placed in His Temple (the heavens and the earth) to reflect His glory and be steward of it.

Of course the Imagio Dei has further theological meaning, but there is nothing that says God cannot have created Homo sapiens sapiens through the mechanism and processes of evolution and made "Adam" in His image and likeness; where Adam is the first truly human person in the hominid lineage in whom God breathed life, giving man a truly spiritual component, morally culpable and aware and able to be intimate with his Creator and in this reflecting the Divine Image and Likeness.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Greg1234]

It's been said before, but it struck me as rather awesome when I first heard it ----- a reference to the miracle of Creation that was mirrored in Jesus' first miracle, i.e., the miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in (Canaan?).

Water contains two elements in the basic molecule (Hydrogen and Oxygen). Alcohol (the wine) is an organic compound and therefore must contain a Carbon atom, as all organic compounds do. We must assume that Jesus created the carbon atoms, and the alcohol molecule in the making of the wine ------ and since this was his first miracle of his ministry, it is a statement of his Divinity and the confirmation that He was there as the Co-Creator of the Universe and the world (with the Father and the Holy Spirit).

It was just as straightforward to create wine as it was to create Adam. Both were miracles, and God was quite modest in demonstrating this awesome event, with eye witnesses to attest to it.

How do you like that, Greg1234?
I love it !!

 

[Greg1234]

Of course not. God does not change. God is not a creature or part of the universe (apart from the Incarnation of course). Evolution deals with created things, those which are creatures, created, material, natural and organic. God is God, not a creature.



Again, of course God doesn't evolve. God isn't a creature. However the "image and likeness of God" should probably be understood contextually here as Genesis 1 functions in part as a Temple narrative--mankind is God's image which He has placed in His Temple (the heavens and the earth) to reflect His glory and be steward of it.

Of course the Imagio Dei has further theological meaning, but there is nothing that says God cannot have created Homo sapiens sapiens through the mechanism and processes of evolution and made "Adam" in His image and likeness; where Adam is the first truly human person in the hominid lineage in whom God breathed life, giving man a truly spiritual component, morally culpable and aware and able to be intimate with his Creator and in this reflecting the Divine Image and Likeness.

-CryptoLutheran

Adam descended from the spirit not from the beast.

 

[One_In_Christ]

Since the Hebrew Scriptures are so meticulously concerned with genealogies, and since Adam is not described as having a mother or (physical, earthly father), why would the Scriptures have left this detail out, unless he was "created" ?
He was a son of God, but a "made son of God" (created with no apparent geneaology---- whereas Jesus was the only "begotten son of God", "begotten, not made".