How Have You resolved the Creationism vs Evolution Debate?

[Old Seer]

Correct, it can be disproven though. eg. if we found the un-resurrected remains of Jesus.

More accurately, it isn't only about 'material'; and certainly our standing before God isn't isn't affected by our physical body, he is interested in what we do with it however.

The meaning of "carnal" is being led by the flesh, or fleshly mind. The bod still needs to be taken care of/maintained--but it's still not Christianity. Christianity is leaving behind the world's minds eye which is "materialism". In the civilized world material is king/the way. That's the same as consumerism. The body of Christ isn't the his material body--it's his embodiment of the spiritual things that make one human (collective spiritual characteristics).

 

[gluadys]

The meaning of "carnal" is being led by the flesh, or fleshly mind.

Now we are starting to get some commonality.

A "fleshly mind" is, after all, a mind, not a body itself. And yes, Paul warns us against following the ways of the "flesh" in this sense.

That is quite a different thing than discarding the whole material creation as of no importance except as housing.

Our modern term for the "fleshly mind" is "consumerism" and nothing could be more antithetical to the respectful care of either our own body or the material creation than consumerism and the fleshly desires that drive it.

A similar, though not identical term is "worldly" and this is a term that refers primarily to human societies, to pursuing the goals set before us by a society gone wrong: fame, wealth, power instead of the path God calls us to.

But again, this sort of worldliness, like fleshly desires, has little or nothing to do with rejecting the wonder and beauty and value of the material creation, as long as we view it through God's eyes and love it as God loves it. In fact, the pursuit of the worldly-minded is antithetical to the reverent care of creation which is our mandate from our Creator.

Whether we call it greed, lust, pursuit of power, worldliness, consumerism, or a fleshly mind, what we are talking about fundamentally is egotism and selfish pride. And that is a sickness of the spirit. It is expressed through the misuse of material things, including our own bodies, but at bottom it is a sickness of the spirit.

Christianity is leaving behind the world's minds eye which is "materialism". In the civilized world material is king/the way. That's the same as consumerism.

Yes, that's right. It is about leaving behind materialism and consumerism. It is about leaving behind the way of the world.

But it is not about leaving behind the body or the material world God made.

Rather it is about healing the sickness of the spirit so that we can express our material and spiritual natures properly in harmony with each other.

The body of Christ isn't the his material body

"body of Christ" has several meanings. It is the Church; it is the consecrated bread. But it is also the body of Jesus of Nazareth and that is decidedly a human, material body. Christianity makes no sense if the reality of Christ's incarnation as a human being is denied. It is a human being, with a human body, who was born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth, preached in Galilee and Judea and was crucified and buried in Jerusalem and was raised from the dead by the power of God. To that all the apostles are witness.

--it's his embodiment of the spiritual things that make one human (collective spiritual characteristics).

One cannot be human on the basis of spiritual characteristics alone. The body is also necessary. After all, in Hebrew, the very word for 'man' ('adam') means "made of earth". There is no human without a human body. Just as there is no human without a human spirit.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Lewontin was more honest because he recognized the implications of the naturalistic view in science. If we accept scientific explanations for everything in nature,then we accept,de facto and practically,the naturalistic world view.
​

Really!

How can that be if one does not also accept a priori the view that "natural" implies the rejection of God?

I didn't say natural,I said naturalistic,as in the scientific view,which does exclude knowledge of God's involvement with nature.

That is not how our Christian ancestors understood the term "natural". They saw natural processes as God-given, God-empowered. To them the light of day and the darkness of night, the cycle of the seasons, the rain and the flowing streams, the fecundity of plants and animals were all "natural" and also all "providential" i.e. part of God's providing for his creatures.

What makes Lewontin's view more logical than that view?

Again,I did not say natural,and I do not understand the word natural to mean the naturalistic view.

Are we really supposed to think that because scientists have worked out what the physical processes are that enable the sun to give off light that God no longer has anything to do with the gift of light to the earth?

No,and I did not suggest that.

Because that is what Lewontin's "logic" means. And you are agreeing with that "logic". "Oh, science has now explained it, so I guess we can stop thinking God provided it."

No,I didn't suggest that. I said that he was more honest than Gould about the implications of the scientific view of nature,meaning that he admitted that science is committed to a materialist world view.

Why is it that anti-evolutionary "creationism" is so riddled with this atheistic notion?

It isn't. You are not acknowledging the obvious fact that MN deliberately excludes knowledge of God from the study of nature,and when I point it out you act like I am saying that scientific explanations make it impossible to believe that God is involved with nature. I suspect you are doing this deliberately. Science doesn't make it impossible to believe in God's involvement,but it is contradictory to believe this and to also believe scientific theories about the origin of species and life and order and matter,because science attributes these things to natural causes,and in the case of matter,to nothing.

I didn't say that it was more acceptable. I don't believe that scientific explanations are adequate to explain all natural phenomena.
​

I do believe that scientific explanations are adequate to explain natural phenomena. What I don't believe is that this means natural phenomena are not created, sustained and empowered by God as the expression of his providential care for his creation. What is the logic behind saying that a scientific understanding of natural processes means they are no longer to be thought of as the way God works in the created order?

I didn't say that. I am saying that the scientific understanding of natural processes is naturalistic,and this leads to false accounts of life,the history of species,natural order and the origination of matter.

It doesn't make sense to say that scientific explanations are adequate for these things and to also say that God creates and sustains them. Since he does create and sustain them,and science does not take this into account,the scientific explanations cannot be adequate. Science attributes to natural causes the ability to do things they do not have the power to do.

 

[shernren]

It doesn't make sense to say that scientific explanations are adequate for these things and to also say that God creates and sustains them. Since he does create and sustain them,and science does not take this into account,the scientific explanations cannot be adequate. Science attributes to natural causes the ability to do things they do not have the power to do.

But doesn't God create and sustain

everything??

What you are really saying with your last paragraph here is that scientific explanations can never be adequate.

 

[TasManOfGod]

But doesn't God create and sustain

everything??

What you are really saying with your last paragraph here is that scientific explanations can never be adequate.

Isn't it written that God holds everything together by the word of His power. Sadly scientists dont know this and are still trying to find what the "cosmic glue" is.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

But doesn't God create and sustain

everything??

What you are really saying with your last paragraph here is that scientific explanations can never be adequate.

Of course God creates and sustains everything. What I am saying is that it does not make sense to say you believe this while also believing in naturalistic theories about how species and life and order and matter originated. Scientific explanations cannot be adequate in regard to phenomena which happen directly by the power of God,unless they acknowledge that they happen by a power over nature.

 

[shernren]

Of course God creates and sustains everything. What I am saying is that it does not make sense to say you believe this while also believing in naturalistic theories about how species and life and order and matter originated. Scientific explanations cannot be adequate in regard to phenomena which happen directly by the power of God,unless they acknowledge that they happen by a power over nature.

Do you believe that scientific explanations can be adequate to explain the sustaining, at least, of things? That, for example, a scientist might be able to tell you exactly why ducks always breed ducks, even if (in your creationist understanding) he cannot tell you where the first duck came from?

 

[TasManOfGod]

Do you believe that scientific explanations can be adequate to explain the sustaining, at least, of things? That, for example, a scientist might be able to tell you exactly why ducks always breed ducks, even if (in your creationist understanding) he cannot tell you where the first duck came from?

Wow that would sure be a scientific breakthrough

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Do you believe that scientific explanations can be adequate to explain the sustaining, at least, of things? That, for example, a scientist might be able to tell you exactly why ducks always breed ducks, even if (in your creationist understanding) he cannot tell you where the first duck came from?

The scientific explanation for reproduction is alright insofar as it accurately describes something that can be observed,and as long as conception is not explained as if it is caused by self-moved natural mechanisms. The more that biological life is explained by reducing it to the natural causes involved,in ignorance of spirit,the more that naturalism determines the explanation,and natural causes are thus portrayed as self-sufficiently creative.

 

[shernren]

What part of conception can't be observed?

If your concern is with the human soul, then what part of animal or plant conception can't be observed?

 

[Incariol]

The scientific explanation for reproduction is alright insofar as it accurately describes something that can be observed,and as long as conception is not explained as if it is caused by self-moved natural mechanisms. The more that biological life is explained by reducing it to the natural causes involved,in ignorance of spirit,the more that naturalism determines the explanation,and natural causes are thus portrayed as self-sufficiently creative.

You do know we can literally observe conception in complete detail, under a microscope and each and every biochemical reaction involved, right?

Fertilization Cone - YouTube

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

What part of conception can't be observed?

If your concern is with the human soul, then what part of animal or plant conception can't be observed?

The spirit that does the conceiving. The human soul is created at once with the human body.

 

[ProScribe]

How Have You resolved the Creationism vs Evolution Debate?

Word of God trumps science.

 

[ProScribe]

You do know we can literally observe conception in complete detail, under a microscope and each and every biochemical reaction involved, right?

i HATE that.

 

[shernren]

The spirit that does the conceiving. The human soul is created at once with the human body.

Okay, but that shouldn't apply to the embryological development of, say, dogs or apples.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Okay, but that shouldn't apply to the embryological development of, say, dogs or apples.

Spirit given by God conceives and grows everything that lives.

 

[shernren]

Apples have spirit?

(I know they can be used to make spirit but that's a whole 'nuther ball game.)

 

[Greg1234]

Apples have spirit?

It does in fact vibrate.

 

[shernren]

It does in fact vibrate.

Like this?

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Apples have spirit?

They grow on apple trees by the power of spirit given by God,as do the trees they belong to. They certainly do not grow by the force of mere natural mechanisms.