How Have You resolved the Creationism vs Evolution Debate?

[Greg1234]

In the scientific community however, it is over.

Well duhhh.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Super Trailer) - YouTube

 

[philadiddle]

Well duhhh.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Super Trailer) - YouTube

Ya right lol, good one!

 

[Papias]

Greg wrote:

germ theory.

Shown to be erroneous. Primary cause lies in the finer aspect of man, not matter
​

.

OK, so now we've seen creationists here at CF (origins theology) deny gravity (Doveman), germ theory (Greg), Evolution (several), and even heliocentrism (gradyll asserts that the sun goes around the earth - geocentrism).

Wow. I wonder what'll be denied next, atomic theory? These are right up there with the truthers and birthers.

Papias
​

 

[shernren]

It all depends on a number of assumptions. First off, to produce the conclusion you currently hold you must look at the physical evidence and assume its history is purely natural. How can I use science to fully explain a supernatural event like creation?

The "conclusion I currently hold" which I am asking you to examine is simply this: This zircon contains more uranium than lead.

Are you saying that you cannot agree to even that without checking against your presuppositions? Is there any particular presupposition that you have which would forbid a zircon from containing more uranium than lead?

 

[Jig]

The "conclusion I currently hold" which I am asking you to examine is simply this: This zircon contains more uranium than lead.

Are you saying that you cannot agree to even that without checking against your presuppositions? Is there any particular presupposition that you have which would forbid a zircon from containing more uranium than lead?

I agree that is the physical observation of the zircon.

 

[Aeneas]

Well duhhh.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Super Trailer) - YouTube

ROFL? Srsly? Expelled?! That movie was virtually universally recognized as hackery years ago.

 

[Greg1234]

ROFL? Srsly? Expelled?! That movie was virtually universally recognized as hackery years ago.

Nope.

 

[shernren]

I agree that is the physical observation of the zircon.

By the way, it's actually meant to be "more lead than uranium" - my bad. That is what, within old-earth presuppositions, an old zircon would look like.

Alright. So I guess you and I really can agree on the physical description of the zircon. The next question would be:

Are you able, within your presuppositions, to explain why the zircon has more lead than uranium?

You will notice that the word "explain" is italicized. What it means for a hypothetical series of events A to explain an observation B (for example: "a few million years of radioactive decay" (hypothetical events) "have caused this zircon to have more lead than uranium" (observation)) can be ambiguous; I leave it to you to define the term as you use it.

 

[Jig]

By the way, it's actually meant to be "more lead than uranium" - my bad. That is what, within old-earth presuppositions, an old zircon would look like.

Alright. So I guess you and I really can agree on the physical description of the zircon. The next question would be:

Are you able, within your presuppositions, to explain why the zircon has more lead than uranium?

You will notice that the word "explain" is italicized. What it means for a hypothetical series of events A to explain an observation B (for example: "a few million years of radioactive decay" (hypothetical events) "have caused this zircon to have more lead than uranium" (observation)) can be ambiguous; I leave it to you to define the term as you use it.

I have no idea what a supernaturally created zircon would look like - in terms of its elemental content. Would we not have to first assume what the initial elemental content of the zircon was?

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

You don't seem to understand. It's redundant because ALL science is naturalistic. It's like saying..the blue ball is blue and feeling that you just NEED to note it is blue twice. If it's not based on methodological naturalism it's not science.

You're conflating the naturalistic view that scientists take with science itself. They are two different things. Science is simply methodological research and experimentation. Naturalism does not define science,it only determines the way scientists view and explain natural phenomena. It does not determine how research and experimentation is done or keep the results accurate. Science is not naturalistic because it tests natural causes and effects,it is the view and interpretation of nature that makes it naturalistic.

No, it's an organized explanation of facts. That is what a theory is.

A scientific theory is not necessarily an organized explanation of facts,it is also set of hypotheses or principles that are tested. But the hypotheses of the evolution story cannot be tested,because the course of time past is beyond reach.

Also there are scientists who are doing experiments RIGHT NOW and have been for some time involving evolution.

They can't experiment upon a hypothetical ancestor of all species to see if all species with descend from it,or test for reproductive connections between dead species.

False. There's a reason humans are described as pattern seeking creatures. Order is a description. It is not in and of itself an indicator of intelligent intent.

Order is not just a description,it is a reality. Order is that which is set in arrangement. And when it comes to the organization seen in living organisms,it is not reasonable to explain it away as a result of natural selection and genetic mutations. That's missing the forest for the trees.

See my original statement. You reply is nothing more than another flawed rehash of your earlier statement. You don't actually seem to understand what natural selection is or how it does result in new organisms.

I know that scientists claim NS produces new species,but I disagree. They misattribute to NS what happens through cumulative acts of reproduction. NS is a process of elimination where the creatures with less beneficial traits die off. It does not result in new kinds of organisms. Reproduction,which is creation,is what produces new species from prior ones,and this does not depend upon the elimination of creatures with less beneficial traits.

It helps when your replies actually address the issue. Theistic evolution and evolution in general has absolutely nothing to do with God simply making things. Nor does one invalidate the other. You are creating a false dichotomy.

That theistic evolution ignores the truth that God creates things individually makes it a false view of God and nature. I didn't suggest that theistic evolution was about God simply making things. But the reality is that God does make living things immediately and individually,and theistic evolution is about how God supposedly created all species through the processes of evolution. I said that it is illogical because it ignores the reality that species exist as individual creatures which are created immediately by God. So it does not make sense for theistic evolutionists to speak of God creating all species through the processes of evolution.

 

[gluadys]

You're conflating the naturalistic view that scientists take with science itself. They are two different things. Science is simply methodological research and experimentation. Naturalism does not define science,it only determines the way scientists view and explain natural phenomena.

I would say that is incorrect. Scientists come to their work with many different views. Naturalism is one of them and quite common, but it is not the only one and it neither defines science nor the way scientists view and explain natural phenomena.

To put it another way: scientists can have a viewpoint--and the viewpoint of many, but not all, scientists is that of naturalism. Science cannot have a viewpoint; it has a characteristic method of research and experimentation.

It does not determine how research and experimentation is done or keep the results accurate. Science is not naturalistic because it tests natural causes and effects,it is the view and interpretation of nature that makes it naturalistic.

In that case, science is not naturalistic, because science cannot have a view and interpretation of nature; only people, scientists as individuals, can have such a view, and it may or may not be naturalism.

As always, it is important to define terminology here. By "naturalism" I mean the view that all reality is completely accounted for by natural/material (non-miraculous/non-supernatural) causation and there is no ultimate causation beyond the natural/material processes described by science.

By "naturalism" I do not mean the quest to understand natural/material causation; one can certainly seek to understand natural order/process/causation without adopting a naturalistic philosophical perspective as the very existence of scientists who are theists testifies.

It seems to me that many people extend the idea of "naturalism" to include every description of the natural world; that is a distortion of the views of many believing scientists. For example, when scientists describe rainfall in terms of the hydrogeological cycle, that is simply describing a natural cycle. It doesn't mean the description depends on a naturalistic worldview or that it implies that rain is not a gift of God.

A scientific theory is not necessarily an organized explanation of facts,it is also set of hypotheses or principles that are tested. But the hypotheses of the evolution story cannot be tested,because the course of time past is beyond reach.

That is incorrect. It can be tested. I think you mean the process of evolution in times past cannot be directly observed. That is true enough. However, since the process of evolution in times past has observable consequences in the present, it can be tested through the presence or absence of those observable consequences.

They can't experiment upon a hypothetical ancestor of all species to see if all species with descend from it,or test for reproductive connections between dead species.

No, but they can test living species to determine the likelihood that they have common ancestors and when in history that common ancestor lived.

NS is a process of elimination where the creatures with less beneficial traits die off. It does not result in new kinds of organisms.

Actually it does. No mutation on its own can result in new kinds of organisms. And unless an accumulation of mutations is ordered by natural selection, no new organism will emerge.

It seems to me that you are not reflecting thoroughly enough on what the consequences of selectively eliminating certain alleles from the species gene pool will be. And you are certainly not reflecting on the results of dividing a gene pool into isolated segments with different selections made in each one will be.

Reproduction,which is creation,is what produces new organisms from prior ones,and it does not depend upon the elimination of creatures with less beneficial traits.

Reproduction, by definition, reproduces what already is. How can you get a new organism that way? In order to produce something new, there must exist something new to be reproduced. What is that new thing? Where did it come from?

I didn't suggest that theistic evolution was about God only making things. I said that it is illogical because it ignores the reality that species exist as individual creatures and are created immediately as individuals by God.

It is not illogical. It recognizes that individual creatures cannot evolve. Evolution is necessarily a group phenomenon. It is a change in the gene pool, the species, not new variants in individual creatures.

Natural selection is the process that either prevents a variant from becoming common (thus preserving the species as it is) or facilitates a variant becoming more common (thus changing the species). But you can't speak of a variant becoming more or less common when you are speaking of one individual alone.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

I would say that is incorrect. Scientists come to their work with many different views. Naturalism is one of them and quite common, but it is not the only one and it neither defines science nor the way scientists view and explain natural phenomena.

In natural science,all phenomena are explained with natural causes alone,as if only nature exists,whatever the private views of the scientists may be. That is what makes science naturalistic.

To put it another way: scientists can have a viewpoint--and the viewpoint of many, but not all, scientists is that of naturalism. Science cannot have a viewpoint; it has a characteristic method of research and experimentation.

The professional perspective of science is naturalism,whatever the private views of scientists may be.

In that case, science is not naturalistic, because science cannot have a view and interpretation of nature; only people, scientists as individuals, can have such a view, and it may or may not be naturalism.

I was talking about the professional scientists. In their professional work,their view is naturalistic.

As always, it is important to define terminology here. By "naturalism" I mean the view that all reality is completely accounted for by natural/material (non-miraculous/non-supernatural) causation and there is no ultimate causation beyond the natural/material processes described by science.

That is the adopted view of science - methodological naturalism.

By "naturalism" I do not mean the quest to understand natural/material causation; one can certainly seek to understand natural order/process/causation without adopting a naturalistic philosophical perspective as the very existence of scientists who are theists testifies.

I agree. But many people think that it is necessary to stick with natural causes in explaining natural phenomena in order for scientific work to be done properly.

It seems to me that many people extend the idea of "naturalism" to include every description of the natural world; that is a distortion of the views of many believing scientists.

Even believing scientists describe nature as if only nature exists - as if nature is self-creating and self-ordering.

For example, when scientists describe rainfall in terms of the hydrogeological cycle, that is simply describing a natural cycle. It doesn't mean the description depends on a naturalistic worldview or that it implies that rain is not a gift of God.

The description does become naturalistic if the natural causes involved are portrayed as self-moved and self-ordered,that is,if nature is portrayed as self-sufficient. It's like describing how a bicycle or a pulley works without mentioning power or force.

That is incorrect. It can be tested. I think you mean the process of evolution in times past cannot be directly observed. That is true enough.

The phrase "process of evolution" is ambiguous. It can mean the process of natural selection and genetic mutation as it can be observed,or it can mean the whole story of evolution theory. I am talking about the whole story,with its claims of common descent of all species and macro-evolution.

However, since the process of evolution in times past has observable consequences in the present, it can be tested through the presence or absence of those observable consequences.

In order to recognize the consequences of a process you think happened long ago,first you have to know if the process really was capable of producing the present circumstances,and if the process really happened. But with evolution theory,the things that are said to have happened are unverifiable hypotheses,and so it is wrong to say that present circumstances are the result of what is claimed to have happened.

 

[Old Seer]

to worry or fear about evolution. An Apostle points out - "first there was the physical and then the spiritual". If the physical came first that shows the material universe formed before the spiritual because the physical is made of material, and that in turn means that man was formed after the material. Both, evolutionist and creationist are wrong in that- Man is not material, but spiritual. The body isn't and cannot be man. There is no such thing as a "Human Body" as the body is material and material cannot be human. just as there can be no such thing as human material. That would be as saying- iron can be human. There are only to possible beings that can exist, man and animal. Each of these is of their own traits. The spiritual of all is made up of these two sets of characteristics, there are none other possible and each is of spiritual nature. There are only two things that exist in the universe, the material and the spiritual, nothing else. The origin of material at this time is unknown, but it is the Creator of beings that is spiritual, and one of those beings created is "man". Proper Christianity is a concern of the spiritual not the physical, and the concerns should be of what manner of person is one. If all contain the "Image" of the Creator then it is that Image and it's make-up that is of concern. A Proper Christian is not concerned with body worship or material worship (materialism) but more in a state of proper spiritual make-up as to what manner of person the self is. Being that everyone contains the exact Image, and it is that Image that is Christianity, then living according to that Image is the concern of a proper Christian. The evolutionist is wrong in referencing the body to "Human". Evolution is the study of the body and it's origin, not the study of "Man". The Creationist is wrong in that it forwards a concern of material formation, and often refers to the physical as a human creation. There is no such thing as a human body. This mistake is common in all societies.

 

[gluadys]

to worry or fear about evolution. An Apostle points out - "first there was the physical and then the spiritual". If the physical came first that shows the material universe formed before the spiritual because the physical is made of material, and that in turn means that man was formed after the material. Both, evolutionist and creationist are wrong in that- Man is not material, but spiritual. The body isn't and cannot be man. There is no such thing as a "Human Body" as the body is material and material cannot be human. just as there can be no such thing as human material. That would be as saying- iron can be human.

I agree in part. The body is not what makes a human, human. But neither is the spirit. Spirit is spirit and no more different from one to another than matter is.

It is in the unity of body and spirit that humanity exists. As to a body not being human, I would disagree, for the human body has its own distinctive DNA. Yes, the chemical composition of DNA is the same in all living things, but each has its own distinctive signature and this, in part, also determines its own distinctive form. I expect this is true of spirit as well, that each of us, both as individuals and as a species, has a spirit with its own distinctive signature even though spirit is spirit in all existing things. And this distinctive human spirit is what is called the image of God.

There are only to possible beings that can exist, man and animal.

No doubt this is a careless error, but what about plants, clouds, stars, fungi, bacteria, etc.

Evolution is the study of the body and it's origin, not the study of "Man".

That is true.

 

[gluadys]

In natural science,all phenomena are explained with natural causes alone,as if only nature exists,whatever the private views of the scientists may be. That is what makes science naturalistic.

OK, this is a problem of semantics, because "naturalistic" is usually taken to refer to a worldview that positively denies the existence of anything not natural.

This is not the case with science. It's purpose is to describe what is natural, in its own terms, but not to deny the existence of what is not natural.

Nor is it the purpose of science to describe how the spiritual and the physical work together, but only to describe the physical aspects of existence.

So, in my view, it is incorrect to confuse the fact that science is committed to describing physical nature and only physical nature with "naturalism" understood as a worldview.

The professional perspective of science is naturalism,whatever the private views of scientists may be.

The professional task of science is to explain/describe nature in terms of its inherent natural properties and forces. That is not a perspective. It is a job description.

I was talking about the professional scientists. In their professional work,their view is naturalistic.

So was I. We are still really stuck on semantics. What does "naturalism/naturalistic" mean? To me, it means a positive denial of the existence of anything beyond nature. That does not describe the view of professional science. It may (certainly does) describe the personal view of some professional scientists. And it is contrary to the personal view of other professional scientists.

That does not change the fact that both are fulfilling their professional task of describing/explaining how nature functions in terms of natural properties and forces.

That is the adopted view of science - methodological naturalism.

No, what I was describing was a philosophy of naturalism. Science does not claim there is no ultimate causation beyond the natural/material processes described by science. Methodological naturalism, as the name suggests, is not committed to a philosophy of naturalism, but to a method of exploring cause and effect in nature. That method does not attempt to describe what cannot be empirically tested. And it assumes, as a matter of course, that the phenomenon is not the product of a specific super-natural intervention that changed what would naturally happen.

The latter assumption, of course, could be incorrect in specific cases, but it is essential to discovering the ordinary workings of nature to assume that not everything is a super-natural intervention into creation as it was originally ordered by God. If, of a thousand rainstorms, one is due to God's specific intervening action, it is still the case that science can explain what natural causes bring about the other 999. And it can do so without denying that one has a supernatural cause.

But the methods of science would not be able to explain/describe the beyond natural cause of that one.

If "naturalism/naturalistic" is a point of view, a perspective, then this is not naturalism.

I agree. But many people think that it is necessary to stick with natural causes in explaining natural phenomena in order for scientific work to be done properly.

And they are right. The methods (not the worldview) of science, methods utterly dependent on empirical observation and testing, have to stick with natural causes in explaining natural phenomena. There is no empirical way to observe/test super-natural causes of natural phenomena. Science, for example, needs observations that are repeatable. How could a scientist demand of God a repeat performance of a super-natural action in order to study it?

But this limitation of science to what is empirically observable/testable in no way implies that there are only natural causes, even in ordinary phenomena. It just means that natural causes are the only ones science can observe/test.

Even believing scientists describe nature as if only nature exists - as if nature is self-creating and self-ordering.

Well, that is what their task is as scientists.

The description does become naturalistic if the natural causes involved are portrayed as self-moved and self-ordered,that is,if nature is portrayed as self-sufficient.

Right. And that is where you get a difference in personal viewpoints. Here the Christian must agree that nature is not self-sufficient even when it appears to be. But at this point we are no longer talking of science, but of theology.

It's like describing how a bicycle or a pulley works without mentioning power or force.

Well, if one doesn't know what the power is or how it works, science can only describe the actual motion of the bicycle or pulley. This is the situation humanity was in for most of its history. When the natural forces that produce lightning or earthquakes or diseases were unknown, these phenomena were attributed to the direct super-natural intervention of an angry deity. The "science" of the day could describe what lightning does, or what the effects of earthquake or plague are, but could not mention any observable causative force.

Note that it was only by assuming that such things did have a natural explanation that the natural explanations were found. Was that impious?

The phrase "process of evolution" is ambiguous. It can mean the process of natural selection and genetic mutation as it can be observed,or it can mean the whole story of evolution theory.

True. For clarity, I prefer to refer to the latter as the history of evolution or phylogenetic history.

They are tied together in the sense that the history (as reconstructed from the evidence) is the outcome of the observed process.

I am talking about the whole story,with its claims of common descent of all species and macro-evolution.

You can't have the process without having common descent. The process generates macroevolution and that means common descent.

In order to recognize the consequences of a process you think happened long ago,first you have to know if the process really was capable of producing the present circumstances,and if the process really happened.

For what reason would we suppose that the process of evolution has not always been part of the history of life? That would be like supposing a universe without gravity or electromagnetism. All the life we know evolves and all the evidence we have is consistent with life that evolves. Why should we not logically infer that evolution is a property of species just as electromagnetism is a property of sub-atomic particles?

But with evolution theory,the things that are said to have happened are unverifiable hypotheses,and so it is wrong to say that present circumstances are the result of what is claimed to have happened.

I think I would need an example of such an unverifiable hypothesis.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

OK, this is a problem of semantics, because "naturalistic" is usually taken to refer to a worldview that positively denies the existence of anything not natural.

The second definition of naturalism in the Merriam Webster dictionary is:

"a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena."

This doctrine is methodological naturalism. The idea that scientific laws or natural causes are adequate to account for all phenomena is just as false as saying that the supernatural does not exist. To intentionally exclude God's power from consideration is to deny that it is necessary.

This is not the case with science. It's purpose is to describe what is natural, in its own terms, but not to deny the existence of what is not natural. Nor is it the purpose of science to describe how the spiritual and the physical work together, but only to describe the physical aspects of existence.

Science doesn't just describe phenomena,it explains them with natural causes alone. And in excluding supernatural power,it misrepresents natural causes as well,attributing to them abilities that they do not have. I know it is not the purpose of science to describe how the spiritual and physical work together,but that just means that science is not trustworthy in how it explains phenomena which are directly dependent upon God's power: the coming into existence of matter,order,and life.

So, in my view, it is incorrect to confuse the fact that science is committed to describing physical nature and only physical nature with "naturalism" understood as a worldview.

Science has its own world-view,and it is naturalistic. It doesn't matter if this view is not philosophical. It is still false.

The professional task of science is to explain/describe nature in terms of its inherent natural properties and forces. That is not a perspective. It is a job description.

To explain nature in terms of natural causes alone is to hold a naturalistic perspective.

 

[gluadys]

The second definition of naturalism in the Merriam Webster dictionary is:

"a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena."

This doctrine is methodological naturalism.

No, that is philosophical, not methodological.

Science methodically explores the physical laws that account for natural phenomena; that does not require a philosophy that the phenomena have no supernatural significance. There is no scientific or theological reason why a natural phenomenon cannot have supernatural significance. For Christians, bread and wine are natural phenomena with a very deep supernatural significance--even if one does not subscribe to Catholic doctrine regarding the eucharistic elements.

As for the second part of the definition, it too is flawed. Since scientific laws apply only to natural phenomena, it should state that they are adequate to account for all natural phenomena. To hold that they apply to all phenomena is philosophical and goes beyond methods of investigating natural phenomena.

The idea that scientific laws or natural causes are adequate to account for all phenomena is just as false as saying that the supernatural does not exist. To intentionally exclude God's power from consideration is to deny that it is necessary.

No, not really. The problem here is an unstated assumption.

The argument as usually presented goes somewhat like this:

All natural phenomena can be adequately accounted for by natural causes.
Therefore, no supernatural explanation is needed to explain natural phenomena.
Therefore, the supernatural (God) does not exist.

This reasoning is false because it contains the unstated premise that nature does not express the power of God. It rests on the false assumption that the essential meaning of "this happened naturally" is "God did not do this".

In fact, this puts God in the box of being a miracle-worker and nothing but a miracle-worker. It means that when a rose blooms in my garden that God is not part of that phenomenon. God has nothing to do with roses blooming because that is "nature" and therefore "not God". It means that when a rainbow lights up the sky after a storm it is only a natural effect of sunlight shining through suspended water particles. It is not a sign from God.

That is atheist philosophy, not science. That is contrary to the heart of Christian theology about God and creation.

ALL of nature, without exception, speaks to us of God. That includes all of nature that has a scientific explanation about how it happens through natural causes as well as anything that is inexplicable.

Scientific causes do not exclude God. Natural causes do not exclude God. Using scientific methods to determine the natural causes of natural phenomena does not exclude God.

What excludes God is the unstated philosophical premise that nature excludes God.

It is when Christians unconsciously and unthinkingly accept that premise, yet know that God is real, that they start seeking for ways to include some sign of the supernatural in the natural. But that leads to a theology of god-in-the-gaps and that is truly inadequate theology.

What we need in the church (and to include in evangelism that touches on these topics) is a full embrace of nature itself as God in action, God-revealing. A natural explanation of any natural phenomenon does exclude miracles. But Christian theology at its best does not limit God to scientifically inexplicable miracles. Christian theology sees God's power as the power of non-miraculous nature with its fully adequate scientific explanations, just as much as in occasional inexplicable miracles.

We should never treat any use of the terms "nature" "natural" as ipso facto excluding God. That is accepting the unstated atheistic assumption that "this happened naturally" means "God did not do this". And that is simply a false, false, false premise.

Science does not depend on accepting that false premise.

Science doesn't just describe phenomena,it explains them with natural causes alone.

As it should. That is its task, to describe/explain phenomena insofar as they can be explained on the basis of natural causes. It is not the task of science to delve into any other causes.

But natural causes per se don't exclude God anyway. So science should not be seen as pushing God out of the picture. It takes philosophy, a materialist philosophy that a priori excludes God from nature to do that.

Christians, instead of decrying science as inherently materialistic, should be rescuing science from such philosophical takeovers of its findings. Never, until the modern age, did Christians see natural things as divorced from God or take a natural explanation of phenomena to be inherently atheistic. It just shows the extent to which Christians have rolled over and played dead in front of a materialistic steamroller.

Christians who accept the exclusion of God from the natural realm have nothing left to turn to except a futile attempt to insert the miraculous into nature. They have lost the plainly biblical teaching that nature itself in its ordinary non-miraculous daily course reveals God's power and glory.

And in excluding supernatural power,it misrepresents natural causes as well,attributing to them abilities that they do not have. I know it is not the purpose of science to describe how the spiritual and physical work together,but that just means that science is not trustworthy in how it explains phenomena which are directly dependent upon God's power: the coming into existence of matter,order,and life.

Again, you are separating nature into compartments, seeking gaps where God's power must intervene miraculously or nothing happens. But the historic view of Christians before the modern age is that all phenomena are directly dependent on God's power. You can't pick out certain events as needing God's power while consigning everything else to the atheists view that "it happened naturally therefore without God". Nothing happens without God. When you can reclaim what happens naturally after the origin of matter, order and life as being just as dependent on God's power as the origins are, then you need not fear a natural explanation of origins either.

Because theologically, it doesn't make any difference if we have an adequate natural explanation of these things. We don't believe that "natural" means "no God". We believe that nature is what you get when God exerts his power. Not just at the beginning, but every moment of every day.

Science has its own world-view,and it is naturalistic. It doesn't matter if this view is not philosophical. It is still false.

No. You are attributing to science the philosophical view of materialistic naturalism. Science can do fine without that addendum (which, I agree, is false). We Christians can claim all of science as our own bailiwick as we use its methods to explore the wonderful natural world that reveals God to us.

To explain nature in terms of natural causes alone is to hold a naturalistic perspective.

Only when you affirm the false unstated premise that nature per se excludes God. Reject that false premise and to explain nature in terms of natural causes alone glorifies the God of nature because each explanation is a testimony to God's wisdom and power as it appears to us in the created order of nature.

 

[Old Seer]

I agree in part. The body is not what makes a human, human. But neither is the spirit. Spirit is spirit and no more different from one to another than matter is.

It is in the unity of body and spirit that humanity exists. As to a body not being human, I would disagree, for the human body has its own distinctive DNA. Yes, the chemical composition of DNA is the same in all living things, but each has its own distinctive signature and this, in part, also determines its own distinctive form. I expect this is true of spirit as well, that each of us, both as individuals and as a species, has a spirit with its own distinctive signature even though spirit is spirit in all existing things. And this distinctive human spirit is what is called the image of God.








No doubt this is a careless error, but what about plants, clouds, stars, fungi, bacteria, etc.







That is true.

Plants clouds trees etc are all material. Trees are bioforms. Flesh is a bioform. Trees contain no spiritual entity. Fungi-bioform. Bacteria- bioform.

 

[gluadys]

Trees contain no spiritual entity.

I strongly disagree.

There is no "material bio-form" without spiritual entity. The Holy Spirit breathes existence into all creation, not just humans. The Word of Christ sustains all creation, not just humans. The angels declare the earth "full of God's glory". The resurrection applies to the body (as per the Apostles' Creed) as much as to the soul.

Genesis 1 depicts creation (the material creation) as God's temple and ourselves as the image of God in that temple; Paul picks this up in Romans when he reminds us that our own bodies are God's temple.

The early church rejected the separation of body and soul (which was an essential component of Gnosticism) and affirmed the oneness of the person, body and spirit together. Both in Christ and in all of us.

We are making one grand mess of our planet because we forget this and separate ourselves from materiality. The rejection and devaluation of the material world for a supposedly "higher" calling has led us into rejecting our God-given mandate to care for creation. Instead we trash, destroy and desecrate the home he has given us.

The identification of "self" "person" with spirit only along with viewing the body and the whole material world as something we "spiritual people" will escape from after death may be appropriate to Hinduism, Platonism, Gnosticism . It is not appropriate to biblical Christianity which envisages the redemption and resurrection of the body and whole material world.

 

[Old Seer]

The tree has no brain. It must have a brain to comprehend with. Bioform denotes a form that has cells. They are still material. They aren't physical as physical implies self movement. There is no free will in a tree.