If you are a Theist, you are a Creationist!

[That Canadian Guy]

Thought I know the issue lies with Creationist "science", which is what many scientifically educated people cringe over, and is what causes this disparity. However, fundamentally, being a Creationist means acknowledging the Crea-tor and all He has crea-ted. Regardless if you care to accept evolution, or a young/old earth, should not matter.

Conversely, I do know there are those who sit on the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum. Complete science deniers who need to believe any and all things need to be mysterious and unexplainable. And we have the science buffs who have demoted God to the confinements of a naturalistic materialism. Either/or is unwarranted, as is this apparent schism in the realms of science and theology.

I'd say this whole method of classification needs an overhaul -_-

I happen to think the early forefathers of science had it down right: from Newton, to Pascal, to Boyle. We should follow their example.

 

[juvenissun]

Thought I know the issue lies with Creationist "science", which is what many scientifically educated people cringe over, and is what causes this disparity. However, fundamentally, being a Creationist means acknowledging the Crea-tor and all He has crea-ted. Regardless if you care to accept evolution, or a young/old earth, should not matter.

Conversely, I do know there are those who sit on the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum. Complete science deniers who need to believe any and all things need to be mysterious and unexplainable. And we have the science buffs who have demoted God to the confinements of a naturalistic materialism. Either/or is unwarranted, as is this apparent schism in the realms of science and theology.

I'd say this whole method of classification needs an overhaul -_-

I happen to think the early forefathers of science had it down right: from Newton, to Pascal, to Boyle. We should follow their example.

I wish it could be that simple.

At least, theists are arguing about whether it is 100% creation or is 50% creation, 50% evolution. Or for the worse, 20% creation vs. 80% evolution.

 

[Assyrian]

Was Jesus 50% man and 50% God?

 

[crimsonleaf]

It's an interesting point. I found myself arguing on the Creationists forum the other week because a predatory pack of atheists were debating with Christians. I'm not YEC or specifically OEC, and might well be a theistic evolutionist, but I guess if you believe that God made the world, by whatever means, then you're a creationist.

I suppose the antonym of "creationist" must be "accidentalist".

 

[Papias]

I agree. The naming convention needs improvement, since as theists, we are all "creationists" in that we accept God as the creator. This is solved by the other name for theistic evolution, which is evolutionary creationism. A good book on that is here:

http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-...5815/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322486938&sr=8-1

Also, it's worth stressing the point Assyrian made. Specifically, it is misleading to talk about "80% evolution and 20% creation". All evolution is creation by God - that's just the method God used. To push God out of his own creative process that way is to fall for the bait of the atheist, and to believe in a constantly shrinking God.

Papias

P.S. Though TCG and I have disagreed in the past, we pretty much agree on this one.

 

[That Canadian Guy]

Also, it's worth stressing the point Assyrian made. Specifically, it is misleading to talk about "80% evolution and 20% creation". All evolution is creation by God - that's just the method God used.

I would agree with you there, there is no "80% vs. 20%", God's creative process is His creative process, it is not to a certain degree of one thing versus another. You can call it evolution, maybe it is a process akin to evolution, though I would say not it is the Darwinian kind at all. I have done quite a bit of good research, and come across quite a lot of interesting, non-creationist sources (required disclaimer nowadays), and I do hope to open up a new thread some time soon.

I have graduated from the debate team, I no longer feel the need to argue points. Truth is truth, as demonstrated by the evidence. That's all I am interested in, and the same should apply to all. Molecular biology is quite a revelation, and as much as it reveals a unique and relevant bond between all biological life, I do not see how and why Darwinism is the accepted model to explain it, aside from it being the only model we have. There are plenty of indications, all scientific, that can demonstrate how it is incorrect, but like I said, I will save that for another thread.

 

[juvenissun]

Was Jesus 50% man and 50% God?

No. So what? Are you a 100% evolutionist and a 100% Christian? Then what's said in the OP is wrong.

 

[philadiddle]

No. So what? Are you a 100% evolutionist and a 100% Christian? Then what's said in the OP is wrong.

After all this time you still can't get over the false dictomy of "God or evolution"?

It seems obvious that after all these years you feel defeated so you're just trolling.

 

[juvenissun]

After all this time you still can't get over the false dictomy of "God or evolution"?

It seems obvious that after all these years you feel defeated so you're just trolling.

I am still waiting for a good argument on this one. Why is that a false dichotomy? Hope you do not disappoint me this time.

 

[troodon]

At least, theists are arguing about whether it is 100% creation or is 50% creation, 50% evolution. Or for the worse, 20% creation vs. 80% evolution.

By what metric are we measuring percentages? Time? Weight percent? Molar percent?

 

[Assyrian]

No. So what? Are you a 100% evolutionist and a 100% Christian? Then what's said in the OP is wrong.

Interesting change of example, but we were talking about God and his work of creation. If Christ can be fully God and fully man, 100% God and 100% man, then we are not limited to a maximum of 100% as the sum total of all the percentages you describe. If God used evolution to create all the different species, it is still 100% created, through him all things were created.

 

[3rdHeaven]

I wish it could be that simple.

At least, theists are arguing about whether it is 100% creation or is 50% creation, 50% evolution. Or for the worse, 20% creation vs. 80% evolution.

It's not that simple and atheists who say it is are guilty of the same ignorance they accuse theists of!

As a believer of God I firmly believe in science too. That includes the Big Bang, evolution, quantum theory all of it rocks and magnifies the glory of God as far as I', concerned!

Religion with out science is blind, and visa versa

 

[juvenissun]

Interesting change of example, but we were talking about God and his work of creation. If Christ can be fully God and fully man, 100% God and 100% man, then we are not limited to a maximum of 100% as the sum total of all the percentages you describe. If God used evolution to create all the different species, it is still 100% created, through him all things were created.

Yes, but you still have the idea of evolution in the whole thing. So if we take the whole thing as 100%, then the part of creation would be less than 100%.

Are you 100% created by God? I guess not. Because you think you evolved from ape.

 

[juvenissun]

It's not that simple and atheists who say it is are guilty of the same ignorance they accuse theists of!

As a believer of God I firmly believe in science too. That includes the Big Bang, evolution, quantum theory all of it rocks and magnifies the glory of God as far as I', concerned!

Religion with out science is blind, and visa versa

I don't agree. Religion without science is only partially blind. And the blinded part is not that important.

 

[juvenissun]

By what metric are we measuring percentages? Time? Weight percent? Molar percent?

Qualitative estimation on the quantity of mind.

 

[shernren]

In fact, you also de facto believe in intelligent design, with a big but.

I believe there is a Mind who was before all things and through whom all things are held together (Colossians 1:17): I believe that Mind is the intelligence behind all that exists in the universe. Hence, I believe in intelligent design. Does that by definition then, place me in the Intelligent Design (ID) movement?
No.


Signature in the Cell | The BioLogos Forum

 

[troodon]

Are you 100% created by God? I guess not. Because you think you evolved from ape.

By this logic you have to say that you are not 100% created by God, because you originated from your mother's egg and father's sperm.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, but you still have the idea of evolution in the whole thing. So if we take the whole thing as 100%, then the part of creation would be less than 100%.

Not if evolution was God's creation and the method he used to created the different species, then it is both 100% God's creation and 100% evolution

Are you 100% created by God? I guess not. Because you think you evolved from ape.

Are you 100% created by God or were your mum and dad involved? What percentage did your mum and dad come to and what percentage was human reproductive biology? You still don't seem to get that if your precentages are measuring different things, then you are not limited to a total of 100% any more than Jesus was (100-x)% God where x is his percentage humanity. My conception was 100% my mum and dad, it was also 100% human reproductive biology, and 100% God creating me. Unless you really think human reproductive biology and your mum and dad leave no room for God making you.

When God made Adam from clay, what percentage was God creating him and what percent was mud?

 

[mark kennedy]

Thought I know the issue lies with Creationist "science", which is what many scientifically educated people cringe over, and is what causes this disparity. However, fundamentally, being a Creationist means acknowledging the Crea-tor and all He has crea-ted. Regardless if you care to accept evolution, or a young/old earth, should not matter.

Creationism is a New Testament and an apologetic response to an atheistic philosophy that excludes God as a cause of anything. More Liberal voices in the church have done this for decades, simply ignore God at every juncture and ridicule anyone who does not follow suit.

Conversely, I do know there are those who sit on the extreme opposite ends of the spectrum. Complete science deniers who need to believe any and all things need to be mysterious and unexplainable. And we have the science buffs who have demoted God to the confinements of a naturalistic materialism. Either/or is unwarranted, as is this apparent schism in the realms of science and theology.

I don't know about extremist but there are a lot of people on the fringes trying to represent science and religion and seldom do they respect or understand either.

I'd say this whole method of classification needs an overhaul -_-

If your talking about taxonomy I would say that's perfectly permissible. If you are talking about where people stand on origins I would say you are either atheistic materialist or you are classified a creationist. I read the blogs of these academic and scientific type that hate religion of any kind and ridicule it shamelessly. They regard Francis Collins a creationist even though he is opposed to creationism and could only be described as an evolutionist since he questions none of the naturalistic assumptions that have to be made.

A creationist is anyone who is not an atheistic materialist, calling that philosophical foundation science and reality is what atheistic materialism is all about.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I happen to think the early forefathers of science had it down right: from Newton, to Pascal, to Boyle. We should follow their example.[/QUOTE]

 

[philadiddle]

I am still waiting for a good argument on this one. Why is that a false dichotomy? Hope you do not disappoint me this time.

The bible says that God controls the weather. So in your world view do you accept meteorology as an explanation for the weather or is it God? Maybe you think it's 20% God and 80% science? Or maybe 50/50? Please let me know exactly where you stand on this. Have you pushed God out of the picture because of science or have you given Him at least a small amount of the credit for the weather?