Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[shernren]

Let me just hover on one sentence I found fascinating before I get into the rest of your post.

Supernatural power can be so subtle that natural causes alone seem sufficient.

Two questions:

1. How is it actually possible for natural causes to "seem" sufficient without actually being sufficient? Gravity has been tested to excruciating detail, and if it wasn't actually sufficient we would have noticed by now.

2. If an atheist were to encounter a phenomenon for which natural causes were actually sufficient, would he be justified in believing that God does not govern it?

 

[lucaspa]

Here's where we get into epistemology. I have no reason to believe that natural causes have the power to cause those phenomena. There is no logical correspondence between the proposed natural causes and the phenomena.

You have several reasons to conclude that natural causes are sufficient as natural causes and that you don't need the additional natural cause of direct action by deity:
1. Biblical statements that God created a complete universe.
2. Logic that if God has to connect 2 members of the universe, then God is also a member of the universe. This we know is not true from scripture.
3. Natural causes sufficient as natural causes have been found and tested.

What is it about amino acids and proteins that would lead us to think they can organize themselves into cells? Sure,that's what it looks like is happening through a microscope,but what power do they have and how does it compare with what happens in a cell?

It is the chemistry of the R groups. Amino acids have the general formula NH2-CHR-COOH. The "R" can represent a single H in glycine, or CH2-CH2-CH2NH2 in lysine. Here is a chart for amino acids: Amino Acids Reference Chart

R groups have differing affinity for water. Some R groups -- such as threonine or alanine, are hydrophobic. That means "water hating". It's the oil vs water analogy. Other R groups, such as serine or threonine, are hydrophilic (water loving) but uncharged. Some R groups like glutamic acid are hydrophilic and negatively charged and others, like lysine, are hydrophilic but positively charged.

What this means is that amino acids in proteins are not like playing cards, where any card can be next to any other card. Instead, hydrophobic amino acids tend to be next to one another, and hydrophilic also tend to be next to each other. Polar but uncharged amino acids, and glycine, help bridge between hydrophilic regions and hydrophobic regions.

Thus, when proteins are made abiotically -- by heating amino acids -- they automatically have internal ordering based on the chemistry of the R groups. This is demonstrated effectively by an experiment where 3 amino acids: glutamic acid, glycine, and tyrosine were heated to react to form tripeptides (proteins of only 3 amino acids). There are 27 possible combinations, but only 6 were actually observed. The chemistry gives you internal ordering.

Something similar happens when the proteins made by chemistry interact to form cells. Again the hydrophobic parts of proteins want to be next to the hydrophobic regions of other proteins. This gives a cell membrane. In fact, it is semipermeable. As it turns out, the internal ordering of the amino acids in abiotically made proteins produce proteins with enzymatic and other activities necessary for life. The odds that an abiotic formed protein will have a biological activity is 1, virtual certainty. Protocells have about 10^18 proteins. So the odds that they will have at least one protein for each of the biological activities necessary for life is also 1.

As Christians,we are obliged to believe that God works in nature anyway.

Not exactly. As Christians we believe that God sustains natural processes and that God can use nature to accomplish His purpose. That is different from "God works in nature" as you are using the term: direct intervention.

Supernatural power can be so subtle that natural causes alone seem sufficient.

They are sufficient as natural causes. God doesn't have to directly push the planets in their orbits. That "directly push" becomes a "natural" cause.

But since anything worth calling order is caused by intelligence,and since orderly movement between the Earth,sun and moon is needed for life to be sustained on Earth,I think the order is sustained by God.

"sustained by God" is different than "caused by intelligence". The direct cause is unintelligent. That is, gravity is unintelligent, and that is the direct (natural) cause of the orderly movement between earth, sun, and moon. We don't need another direct cause: supernatural. All we need is for the supernatural to will that the natural cause works all the time.

For life, the direct cause is chemistry. For the designs in plants and animals, the direct cause is natural selection. Both chemistry and natural selection are unintelligent processes.

FYI, Anthony, you are restating the Argument from Design, but you are using "order". Creationists had given up using "order" as evidence of supernatural intelligence before 1700. However, they did think that intelligence was needed for design. So the Argument from Design was a "proof" of the existence of God. When Darwin discovered natural selection, that proof disappeared. God didn't disappear, just that the particular "proof" didn't work anymore. Modern creationists have been trying to get the Argument from Design back. Apparently they need "proof" of the existence of God. Faith isn't good enough for them.

 

[lucaspa]

I am a creationist,because I believe in the doctrine of creation.

That's not sufficient to be a creationist. It's a sleight-of-hand Phillip Johnson tried. I also believe "the doctrine of creation", but I am not a creationist.

But even the things that were not meant to be taken literally must be regarded as having actually happened.

Do we actually think there was a Prodigal Son? Or the man given talents by the king actually happened?

Some things must have actually happened for Judeo-Christianity to be true. Essentially the Exodus and the Resurrection must have happened.

Catholic doctrine does not allow for humans to have evolved from a previous species.

This is what makes you a creationist. As Papias pointed out, this is simply false. Catholic doctrine, as stated by 3 Popes, does allow for the human body and mind to have evolved from a previous species. Where Pope John Paul II drew the line was the evolution of the "soul". He insists that the soul is a direct creation of God. Interestingly, Darwin had no problem with this idea. In fact, he defended the idea:

"He who believes in the advancement of man from some low organised form, will naturally ask how does this bear on the belief in the immortality of the soul. The barbarous races of man, as Sir J. Lubbock has shewn, possess no clear belief of this kind; but arguments derived from the primeval beliefs of savages are, as we have just seen, of little or no avail. Few persons feel any anxiety from the impossibility of determining at what precise period in the development of the individual, from the first trace of a minute germinal vesicle, man becomes an immortal being; and there is no greater cause for anxiety because the period cannot possibly be determined in the gradually ascending organic scale." http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-21.html The Descent of Man

Basically, no one knows when in the process of embryonic development of each individual human God bestows a soul. It's sometime either at or before birth. But just when, we don't know. Science can't address the issue because "soul" is a theological term that has nothing that science can measure.

Macro-evolution is not just any kind of speciation,it is development above the species level. But that can't happen because speciation only results in sub-species which tend to have less genetic variability than the group it branched from.

Evolution of higher taxa is not a "kind of speciation". Rather, it is the result of multiple speciations spread over time. See the diagram in Origin of Species (it is the only one): http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1 pg 90 Much of the research in macroevolution involves looking at possible "trends" in the evolution of a lineage, such as larger brains and bipedalism in the hominid lineage, or the loss of toes in the horse lineage. Why is it that species with fewer toes did better in the horse lineage?

Speciation results in new species, not "sub-species". Generation of "sub-species" is a result of microevolution. Sub-species can interbreed to produce fertile offspring; they are a single gene pool. Species cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring; they are isolated gene pools.

Speciation causes division and tapering,not metamorphosis from one primary species (such as horse or ape) to another.

I'm sorry, Anthony, but someone has given you some very bad and incorrect information about evolution. First, "horse" and "ape" are not species. They are Family names encompassing dozens of species. Second, most speciaton does involve splitting and getting 2 or more species where there used to be one. That is what the studies on speciation in real time in the lab and the wild have observed. Species split because part of the population faces a new environment. This can be a geographical split as in H. erectus in Asia, H. sapiens in Africa, and H. neandertalis in Europe, all descending from H. ergastor. That is allopatric speciation. Or it can be facing a new environment in the same geographical location, as the apple maggot fly living on imported apple trees instead of the native crabapple trees in N. America. That is sympatric speciation.

The theory itself excludes God from working in nature,because it was developed from MN,which is the deliberate exclusion of the supernatural from scientific explanations,

How many times must we correct you on this before you stop repeating this lie?

It does not leave room for God to be working in nature,because it has natural "mechanisms" and processes doing everything by themselves.

As I showed you from quotes from Origin of Species; this is not how Darwin viewed it. We cannot, because of MN, say whether any natural process is "doing everything by themselves". atheists believe that natural processes are not sustained by God. But that's a belief, not a statement of science or evolution.

If you were to apply the doctrines of creation and providence fully and precisely to the theory of evolution,you would have to wholly convert it into a theory of creation and providence in order to do justice to all that the doctrines say.

Your "doctrine of creation and providence" is obviously creationism. It has God directly creating some things. A real doctrine of creation has God sustaining the natural processes and using them to create.

You were so closea couple of posts back. Now you have slipped into creationism again.

 

[Anthony022071]

Two questions:

1. How is it actually possible for natural causes to "seem" sufficient without actually being sufficient?

Because appearances can be misleading. The functioning of a cell looks like the natural processes are self-moved,but when I consider what kind of power it would take to create that working order,I do not find it logical to believe that natural causes are sufficient,because I have no reason to believe they have that power.

Gravity has been tested to excruciating detail, and if it wasn't actually sufficient we would have noticed by now.

The force of gravity is not like life in an organism. It does not create moving,purposeful order,it only causes objects to fall.

Gravity is an invisible,insubstantial force,so it cannot be tested like a material thing can be tested. It is the effects of gravity that have been tested.

2. If an atheist were to encounter a phenomenon for which natural causes were actually sufficient, would he be justified in believing that God does not govern it?

No,because God is the cause of all causes and he has governance over all things. This is not the same as controlling all phenomena. God allows natural things their own freedom of chance movement,along with the space to move. But natural things do have have the power to create order and life.

 

[Assyrian]

Because appearances can be misleading. The functioning of a cell looks like the natural processes are self-moved,but when I consider what kind of power it would take to create that working order,I do not find it logical to believe that natural causes are sufficient,because I have no reason to believe they have that power.

Power? You mean like megawatts or gigawatts? Why isn't the power that went into creating these cells released in a massive explosion when they die?

 

[Anthony022071]

< the problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmáry and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: 'There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens. >

Secondly, and more importantly, that speech is from about a decade ago. Perphaps Ratzinger did have some questions about common descent then, which were resolved in the years between then and now? After all, his statements suggest that he was, as the time, unaware of the huge number of clear lines of evidence for common descent and the many documented macroevolutionary transitions - which friends, on hearing a clearly misinformed statment from him, may have pointed out to him. Being a professor type, it makes sense that he would find out in those ensuing years, since his most recent statements (some of which we've seen here) are clear and unambiguously in support of common descent.

The book Truth and Tolerance was published in 2003.

The document Communion and Stewardship was written by a subcommission of the ITC between 2000 and 2002.

< Preliminary Note

The theme of &#8220;man created in the image of God&#8221; was submitted for study to the International Theological Commission. The preparation of this study was entrusted to a subcommission whose members included: Very Rev. J. Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Most Reverend Jean-Louis Bruguès, Msgr. Anton Strukelj, Rev. Tanios Bou Mansour, O.L.M., Rev. Adolpe Gesché, Most Reverend Willem Jacobus Eijk, Rev. Fadel Sidarouss, S.J., and Rev. Shun ichi Takayanagi, S.J.

As the text developed, it was discussed at numerous meetings of the subcommission and several plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome during the period 2000-2002. The present text was approved in forma specifica, by the written ballots of the International Theological Commission. It was then submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the Commission, who has give his permission for its publication. >


< Cardinal Christoph Schönborn: &#8220;Finding Design in Nature&#8221;

&#8221;The New York Times&#8221;, July 7, 2005


Ever since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was ''more than just a hypothesis,'' defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance &#8211; or at least acquiescence &#8211; of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things... >

< In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new Pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of &#8220;evolution&#8221; as used by mainstream biologists &#8211; that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.

The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that ''the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.''

Furthermore, according to the commission, ''An unguided evolutionary process &#8211; one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence &#8211; simply cannot exist.''

Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: ''We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.''

Throughout history the Church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the ''death of God'' that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.

Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of ''chance and necessity'' are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence. >

 

[Anthony022071]

Power? You mean like megawatts or gigawatts?

Whatever power would be necessary to create an organism. That would be power over natural elements.

Why isn't the power that went into creating these cells released in a massive explosion when they die?

Because God's power is not physical.

 

[Papias]

Anthony, could you please clarify your post? Is it one long quote of a newspaper article? I see the one quote from me, but is any of it your words? Is any of it from a Pope?

Thanks-

Papias

 

[Anthony022071]

Anthony, could you please clarify your post? Is it one long quote of a newspaper article? I see the one quote from me, but is any of it your words? Is any of it from a Pope?

Thanks-

Papias

The first two sentences after your quote are mine. The following quote is a footnote from Communion and Stewardship,from the Vatican website. The next quotes are from an article written by Cardinal Schoenborn. I should have added that the pope's most recent public comments on evolution that I am aware of are found in the book Creation and Evolution,which came out in 2007. I don't have the book,but there are some quotes of his to be found in online articles. A review of the book in the National Center for Science Education website
mentions that the pope expresses doubt about macro-evolution on page 19. Here is part of a Catholic News Agency article.


< POPE-EVOLUTION (CORRECTED) Apr-16-2007 (590 words) xxxi

In new book, pope quoted as seeing no conflict between faith, science

By Michael Lawton
Catholic News Service

COLOGNE, Germany (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI has said that he sees no conflict between faith and science in the exploration of the universe's development, but he has criticized those who see evolution as an explanation for everything.

The remarks, made in a discussion he hosted at Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome, with some of his former students in September last year, have been published in a German book titled "Schoepfung und Evolution" ("Creation and Evolution"). The book was published April 11 by the Sankt Ulrich Verlag publishing house.

The students have met annually since 1978 with their former doctoral supervisor, but this is the first time they have published the lectures and discussions.

During the discussion, the pope said it was not a matter of "deciding either in favor of a creationism, which out of principle excludes science from its considerations, or in favor of a theory of evolution, which underplays its own gaps and refuses to see questions which go beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science."

What was important, he said, was "the interplay of different dimensions of reason, an interplay which opens up into the road to faith."

The pope argued that Christianity was a religion of reason, but a reason that was wider than the limited scope of modern science.

For the pope, science reaches its limits when its assumptions can no longer be tested.

"We can't bring 10,000 generations into the laboratory," he said. That leaves "gaps in the possibility of proving or disproving (the theory) by experiment."

However, Pope Benedict said, God cannot be used simply to explain away the problems.

"It's not as if I wanted to stuff dear God into these gaps," he said. "He's too big to fit into such gaps."

Pope Benedict also took a firm stand against science books' tendency to suggest that things came about by nature and evolution.

"The question has to be asked: What is nature or evolution as (an active) subject? It doesn't exist! If one says that nature does this or that, this can only be an attempt to summarize a series of events under one actor which, as such, doesn't exist," the pope said.

Nature and evolution are made up of many individual steps, and the pope insisted that one must look beyond nature and evolution for a guiding principle.

Pope Benedict said science had discovered large areas of rationality and had given people new understanding.

But, he said, "in its joy at the greatness of its discoveries, it has tended to take away from us dimensions of reason which we still need." ...>

 

[Anthony022071]

By Melissa Eddy, Associated Press

BERLIN — Benedict XVI, in his first extended reflections on evolution published as pope, says that Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven and that science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity's view of creation.
In a new book, Creation and Evolution, published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.

"The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science," the pope said.

He stopped short of endorsing intelligent design, but said scientific and philosophical reason must work together in a way that does not exclude faith.

"I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science," the pope was quoted as saying in the book, which records a meeting with fellow theologians the pope has known for years.

In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin's theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin's theory of evolution was "more than a hypothesis."

"The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this," Benedict said. "But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

"We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory," he said.

Evolution has come under fire in recent years by proponents — mostly conservative Protestants — of "intelligent design," who believe that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force rather than evolving from more primitive forms.

The book, which was released by the Sankt Ulrich publishing house, includes reflections of the pope and others who attended a meeting of theological scholars at the papal summer estate in Castel Gandolfo in early September.

The pope's remarks were consistent with one of his most important themes, that faith and reason are interdependent.

"Science has opened up large dimensions of reason ... and thus brought us new insights," the pope wrote. "But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need.

"Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it," he said.

 

[Assyrian]

Whatever power would be necessary to create an organism. That would be power over natural elements.

Because God's power is not physical.

So when you say "when I consider what kind of power it would take to create that working order" you really don't have any idea what sort of power you are talking about, and it is completely unquantifiable, just the feeling God must be involved? Couldn't God use his almighty power to create a universe where atoms like carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen can come together naturally to produce life?

 

[Papias]

Anthony-

Thanks for clarifying that post.


The 2007 statements are fully consistent with the Pope's Theistic Evolution, including the idea that common descent of all life on earth from bacteria being "virtually certain" and the evolution of humans from ancient apes.

That's why he empasized that science and scripture are not in conflict. Because he supports theistic evolution, or "evolutionary creationism", where God uses evolution to create humans, divinly giving them a soul at some point in that process.

You can see this in each of the quoted statements. Of course the theory of evolution is not complete - no scientific theory ever is, that's how science works. Of course it isn't "proven", that's how science works, no theory is ever considered "proven". That goes for the idea of germs, atoms, and gravity too, by the way. Your quoted article supports the earlier views expressed by His Holiness - that of theistic evolution = evolutionary creationism.

The Pope (rightly) constantly reminds us that a materialistic, atheistic view of evolution is not correct - that God is supporting the process at every turn. If the Pope denied evolution and common descent, he'd have to say that evolution and creationism are in conflict, because the evidence is overwhelming that evolution happened. But no - he repeats over and over that there is no conflict - because he accepts that evidence, and hence accepts common descent and the parentage of humans from apes, and insists that the correct view of evolution is that this is how God is creating. Here are his own words (my bold) :

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.
​

source: the Vatican, here: Meeting with the clergy of the Dioceses of Belluno-Feltre and Treviso


-Papias

 

[Anthony022071]

Thanks for clarifying that post.


The 2007 statements are fully consistent with the Pope's Theistic Evolution, including the idea that common descent of all life on earth from bacteria being "virtually certain" and the evolution of humans from ancient apes.

That wasn't his personal opinion,it was the ITC stating the scientific account of origins. His personal opinions about evolution theory are not consistent with the idea that he accepts evolution theory as a whole,the way that self-described theistic evolutionists usually do. There is a difference between accepting evolution in the mere sense of descent with modification,and accepting the theory of evolution,which is a narrative of natural history. If he were satisfied with the theory,he would not criticize it and cast doubt upon it as he does.

That's why he empasized that science and scripture are not in conflict. Because he supports theistic evolution, or "evolutionary creationism", where God uses evolution to create humans, divinely giving them a soul at some point in that process.

Scientific research is one thing,the theory of evolution is another.

When you say God uses evolution to create humans,what kind of evolution do you mean,and how does God use natural it? Evolution can mean anything from the modifications that can be seen in comtemporary species to the complete metamorphoses of species described in evolution theory. And to say that God uses natural causes can mean either that he gives them ability to work on their own like a mechanism or that he personally acts upon them. The former opinion is that of Francis Bacon and deists,the latter view is that of the writers of scripture and the saints and of Catholic doctrine.

God does not give humans souls at some point in a process,he creates humans immediately as unities of soul and body. The soul (anima) is the life and form of the body. It is what forms and animates the body in the first place. See sections 26-31 of Communion and Stewardship.

You can see this in each of the quoted statements.

I don't see it. I see criticism and doubt.

Of course the theory of evolution is not complete - no scientific theory ever is, that's how science works. Of course it isn't "proven", that's how science works, no theory is ever considered "proven". That goes for the idea of germs, atoms, and gravity too, by the way.

A theory is proven if it's claims can be demonstrated. Scientific claims about germs and atoms and the effects of gravity upon falling objects can often be demonstrated by experiment.

Your quoted article supports the earlier views expressed by His Holiness - that of theistic evolution = evolutionary creationism.

The Pope (rightly) constantly reminds us that a materialistic, atheistic view of evolution is not correct - that God is supporting the process at every turn.

A materialistic or naturalisitic view of evolution theory is the only one that
accords with the contents of the theory itself. The theory portrays natural causes as doing all the creating,and it attributes to natural causes the ability to do certain things that they do not have the power to do.
It does not leave room for any supernatural causation. To bring God into the theory is superfluous and unnecessary for the theory,and it is illogical.

If the Pope denied evolution and common descent, he'd have to say that evolution and creationism are in conflict, because the evidence is overwhelming that evolution happened. But no - he repeats over and over that there is no conflict - because he accepts that evidence, and hence accepts common descent and the parentage of humans from apes, and insists that the correct view of evolution is that this is how God is creating. Here are his own words (my bold) :

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called &#8220;creationism&#8221; and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.
​

Yes,I've seen that quote before. What I said in another post applies here. The pope does not ususally distinguish between evolution as a concept and the scientific theory of evolution,or between micro-evolution,which is just speciation,and macro-evolution. So his comments cannot be taken as if he approves the theory. What he wants is a discussion with science in which reason is not limited to MN and which does not exclude faith. He knows that the theory proceeds from MN and that MN is a limitation on reason.

 

[Doveaman]

The Flood stories in Genesis 6-8 are designed to show a flood. However, God's Creation contradicts that it is a world-wide flood.

God’s creation does not contradict anything. It is scientists that make those contradictions based on a myopic interpretation of the evidence.

God encourages us to “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7), but scientists rely on sight alone, the very thing God said not to do. No wonder they see so many contradictions; it’s because they are doing it their own myopic way and not God's way “by faith, not by sight”. A myopic view of reality will always see contradictions.

The earth was immersed in water resulting in evidence scientists should not expect. So what? The three men were immersed in fire resulting in evidence scientists should not expect. So such events are common. And I certainly don't intend to limit God's power to what scientists should expect.

It could very well have been their world, like in Luke 2:1 the "entire world" is really the Roman world.

Why waste time building a giant ark to escape a local flood in the “Roman world” when you can just pack up and leave “Rome” just a Lot and his family packed up and left Sodom?

And why try to save the animals in “Rome” when those same animals exist outside of “Rome”?

And why only condemn the people in “Rome” even though the sin judgment was on all mankind whom God had created?

“The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become...The LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth...So the LORD said, ‘I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth.’” (Gen 6:5-7).

Genesis 6-8 doesn't talk of any protection nor is there intended to be any!

This does not prove there was none.

Remember, all land creatures die. So, that means real flood waters leaving real effects behind.

Remember, all the soldiers standing near the fire died. So, that means real fire leaving real effects behind.

Daniel is talking miracle of protection of those 3 men. Genesis 6-8 is not.

Genesis 6-8 is talking miracle of protection of Noah’s family and the animals. The trees submerged under the water were also protected, including the soil from which they grew:

“When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.” (Gen 8:11).

So, the 3 men had already called on God to do this particular miracle. No one called on God to preserve the earth exactly as it was before the Flood.

Just because no one asked for the earth to be protected does not mean God did not protect it. The flood was God’s idea, so He can protect or destroy whatever He desires. Does God only protect the things we ask for? Obviously not.

This isn't a modification of the theory. It is what we call an "ad-hoc hypothesis" to save your theory from falsification.
You make a theory: global flood. From that you make deductions of of the data that should be present. In this case, what we find is contradictory data. That data falsifies the theory.

The global flood is not viewed as theory, it is viewed as fact:

“The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become...The LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth...So the LORD said, ‘I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth’... The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth...and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered...Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out.” (Gen 6:5-7, 7:22-23).

God's judgement was on all mankind whom He had created, except those in the ark.

So now you introduce a new hypothesis: God prevented any of the effects of the flood. BUT, you have no basis to claim that. There's nothing in scripture to indicate God would be performing a miracle here. You introduced it only to keep the hypothesis from falsification.

But if the global flood was a miracle then everything associated with that flood miracle would be a part of that miracle, including the protection of the trees and the soil from which those trees grew.

My point is that God was quite capable of protecting the earth form the flood just as He protected the three men from the fire, which means that your scientific conclusion of no global flood is not necessarily correct. You are limiting God’s ability to a myopic scientific theory.

What's more, in the cases I used, we had evidence (altho not scientific) for God's intervention: unburned men who were in a furnace, people meeting the risen Christ, etc. Here you have no evidence for God's intervention except that the expected data for a global flood is absent.

It is scientists who say the evidence for a global flood is absent. I’m just making the point that even if it is absent this does not prove the flood didn’t happen, because, from a scientific point of view, the evidence for the furnace fire was also absent on the three men, but the furnace fire did happen resulting in evidence that should not be there if it did, which is no different from the flood.

For instance, Thomas tested the ad hoc hypothesis that Jesus was risen by putting his hands in the wounds. That tactile and visual observation of the wounds is independent of the hypothesis that Jesus was resurrected. You don't have that here. We have no way to independently test for God's prevention of any effects of the flood.

So what? This does not prove there was no prevention. Your argument only focuses on what was not mentioned, but this does not prove it did not happen. The fact that it could have happened means that your scientific conclusion of no global flood is not necessarily correct.

All it takes to cast doubt upon your conclusion is to show what is possible. The fact that a destructive event such as the furnace fire can occur resulting in evidence that should not be there after the fire occurred shows us that your scientific conclusion of no global flood is not necessarily correct.

But that is exactly the point of that miracle, isn't it? What's the point of covering up the Flood. In the Daniel story, the health of the 3 men is evidence that God was telling the truth and would protect the men.

The flood miracle was meant for Noah and his family who were protected from the flood. It was not meant for modern scientists who are incapable of testing for miracles.

If God prevents any evidence of a flood, then God is telling a lie by making it appear something did not happen that did happen.
Thus, theologically you are on very dangerous ground. You are having God tell us a lie.

You are the one on very dangerous ground by relying on sight alone even though God tells us to “walk by faith, not by sight”, and your accusing the apostle Paul of being wrong about what he wrote is proof of that danger.

If God told us to walk by sight alone, like scientists do, and we saw what we should not see then we would have reason to think God is deceiving us by what we see.

But if God told us to “walk by faith, not by sight” and we still relied on sight alone, like scientists do, and ended up being deceived by what we see then we only have ourselves to blame for our deception because we are viewing things our own myopic way and not God's way.

Scientists who rely on sight alone are likely to see contradictions and are more likely to be deceived by what they see. But those who “walk by faith, not by sight” are not easily fazed by those apparent contradictions and are more likely not to be deceived by what they see. This is because our confidence is not in the wisdom of scientists, but in the power of God.

“My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.” (1 Cor 2:4-5).

If a scientific claim does not contradict God's given word then that scientific claim can be accepted. But if a scientific claim does contradict God's given word then that scientific claim is to be rejected no matter how convincing the observations may be, “For we walk by faith, not by sight.” (2 Cor 5:7).

 

[Doveaman]

If the serpent of Genesis is a dragon, that's even more reason not to read the account as an historical narrative.

Why? Don&#8217;t you believe in dragon-serpents?

The ancients certainly saw things they referred to as dragon-serpents.

Maybe if you dig deep enough you might find some fossils.

Besides, some descriptions are meant to be metaphors describing the nature of things that are literal and historical. A person who eats like a pig may be referred to as a pig. A person who is sly and deceitful like a serpent may be referred to as a serpent. Satan is the literal, historical person who deceived Eve in the garden and he is metaphorically referred to as a dragon-serpent because of his sly, deceitful, treacherous nature.

&#8220;And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back...The great dragon was hurled down &#8212; that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.&#8221; (Rev 12:7-9).

Jesus said: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." (Luke 10:18).

 

[Doveaman]

No, the point is that, in Hebrew, the words are different when used to refer to a person and the entire human race. Let's look at the Hebrew:
Genesis 1:27: Vayivra Elohim et-ha'adam betsalmo betselem Elohim bara oto zachar unekevah bara otam.
"et-ha'adam" is "man" as in "human race", "male" is "zachar", not "Adam". "unekevah" is "female".
So lets look at Genesis 2:7: "Vayitser Adonay Elohim ha'adam afar min-ha'adamah vayipach pe'apav nishmat chayim vayehi ha'adam lenefesh chayah"
Now we have "ha'adam" to refer to one man.
Genesis 2:23: "Vayomer ha'adam zot hapa'am etsem me'atsamay uvasar mibesari lezot yikare ishah ki me'ish lukacha-zot."
"ishah" is "Eve". "ish" in "me'ish" is "man". Notice they are not the "zachar" or "unekevah" used in Genesis 1:17. Those are plural.
Therefore, the original Hebrew contradicts your claim.

You keep seeing contradictions where there is none.

Genesis 1 is a general account of the creation events, including the creation of the human race in the form of the man, Adam.

Genesis 2 then focuses more specifically on the creation of the man, Adam.

Therefore, the man, Adam, in Genesis 2 can be referred to as singular in the sense that Genesis 2 is focusing on the creation of the one man, Adam. While the same man, Adam, in Genesis 1 can be referred to as plural in the sense that in Genesis 1 the man, Adam, represents the entire human race who came out of his body.

The literal Adam represents all human beings born with a human nature in the same way that the literal Christ represents all human beings born-again of the divine nature.

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Cor 15:22).

You capitalized "Him" referring to Adam as tho Adam is God. Why?

Mistake.

In this case, "ha-adam" means dirt. Look back at Genesis 2:7 and that "ha-adamah". Dirt.

The entire human race is made from dirt, including Adam.

We are not sinners until we commit a sin. Are you saying a fresh newborn baby is a sinner?

Not me, but the Bible.

“Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!”
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” (Job 14:4, Ps 51:5).

The questions we can ask is why did God drown babies during the flood? Why did God burn babies in Sodom? Why did God slaughter babies in Canaan? Was it because those babies were innocent of sin, or was it because they were guilty of sin?

Paul is saying that we have committed a sin because Adam committed a sin.
You did not show how I read the Romans 5:15 wrong. You made a claim without reasons or evidence.

Paul is saying we sin just as Adam sinned and that not all sins are the same.

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned...death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam.” (Rom 5:12-14).

We sin because we have a sinful nature inherited from fallen Adam.

“I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.” (Rom 7:18).

Every human being is born with a sinful nature that has a natural inclination toward sin. You don’t have to commit sin to have a sin nature; you just need to have a nature that is naturally inclined to sin. And it is that sinful nature that Christ came to destroy

“For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so He condemned sin in sinful man.”(Rom 8:3).

Jesus came in the likeness of sinful man having a sin nature Himself, but yet Jesus Himself never sinned. Jesus overcame sin in His own sin nature on the behalf of mankind, and then He condemned our sin nature through the death of His own sin nature on our behalf on the cross.

"What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God — through Jesus Christ our Lord!"(Rom 7:24-25).

"reading between the lines"? LOL! I thought we were supposed to take a "plain reading" of scripture? When plain reading of scripture contradicts what you claim Paul is saying, then we must "read between the lines"? LOL!

Reading between the lines means don’t just read one scripture and ignore all the others, because reading the others help us to better understand the one.

BTW, you haven't addressed all the other verses where Paul says Jesus died for our sins, not because Adam sinned.

Jesus died for our sins because we do sin, but we sin because of our human sin nature inherited from Adam.

Nice change of subject. I said " We have never told you that you can use theory to deny fact. In fact, we criticize creationists all the time for doing exactly that. "
You are not denying that creationists try to use theory to deny fact.
Remember, theories are based on fact.

Theories are based on a fallible human interpretation of facts. Facts are observed then interpreted to form the theory.

They are tested against fact. When we have a theory that has repeatedly been tested against facts and we have failed to show it to be false, we accept it as (provisionally) true.

If it is provisional then you are not sure if it is true. I have no interest in your opinions about facts. I am only interested in the truth.

So, we are ultimately using facts to deny particular interpretations of scripture.

No. You are using a fallible human interpretation of facts to deny scripture, including your denial of what the apostle Paul wrote in scripture.

You seem to be saying that a creationist interpretation of scripture = scripture. Nice sleight-of-hand. You try to convert criticism of a human interpretation into criticism of scripture. Doesn't work.

No. I’m saying that your fallible human interpretation of facts has resulted in your reinterpreting scripture and at times ignoring the scripture all together. Your denial of what Paul wrote is proof of this.

Your quote:

you should have looked at the OT to realize that Paul is saying something forbidden in scripture

You are actually accusing Paul of writing scripture that contradicts scripture, leaving us no reason to think you understand scripture.

you have trotted out the old creationist canard about theory. As I pointed out above, theories are based upon, and tested against, facts. We often consider well-supported theories to be equivalent to "fact". For instance, "the earth is round" is a theory. But don't you accept it as fact? Friction is also a theory. But you never hesitate to put the brakes on your car when you need to stop because it is "only a theory", do you? You consider it fact.
So, not only did you misrepresent what I wrote, but what you actually wrote is not what you believe.
The facts are so many and so overwhelmingly supportive of the theory that humans descended from ancient apes that we accept it, like round earth and friction, as true and "fact".

Friction can be observed as fact by rubbing two objects together. Round earth can be observed as fact by taking a trip on a space shuttle. Man descending from ape ancestor is not observed as fact, it is inferred. Therefore, it is not a fact.

1. What bestiality?
2. I clearly labeled my speculation: "made presumably in Genesis 2 as a potential helpmeet for Adam"

I am speculating that might be the case, but not insisting on it. After all, Genesis 2 doesn't mention any other possible origin for the serpent, and it is an animal.

The serpent is not an animal. It is a metaphorical description of the literal Satan who tempted the literal Eve in the literal garden. Satan is described metaphorically as a serpent because of his sly, deceitful, treacherous nature.

Then they aren't "natural" anymore.

If the laws of nature are modified so that natural phenomena behave differently, it is still natural phenomena behaving according to the laws of nature. The laws of nature may be different but they are still the laws of nature, and are therefore still natural.

Genesis 2 has the serpent becoming a snake. Remember: "serpent" is a synonym for snake.

Revelations, if the author is not speaking in code and really means it that the serpent in Genesis 3 is the devil, cannot be right. Remember:
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

The serpent is going to have offspring (so we can surmise there is a female serpent somewhere). Do you really think modern snakes have Satan DNA? Also, if your idea that the serpent is a dragon, then just how are we supposed to bruise its head, and how does it bruise our heel? This works only if we are talking about snakes, which the authors knew often bit humans on the heel.

What's more, when we go to Job, we see that Satan is friendly with God and is walking. That's not possible because the serpent lost his legs in Genesis 3.

What legs? Genesis 3 doesn’t mention any legs.

You need to distinguish what is literal from what is metaphor. Satan who tempted Eve in the garden is literal. Satan being described as a serpent is metaphor. Do you really think God is talking about literal snake descendants whose heads we must literally step on?

The bruising of heel and head is metaphorical. It is referring to the physical death that Christ experienced at the hands of Satan who 'bruised Christ' heel'. This experience also resulted in the power of Satan being completely destroyed through the death of Christ who 'bruised Satan's head'.

 

[Papias]

Anthony wrote:

That wasn't his personal opinion,it was the ITC stating the scientific account of origins.

Um, news flash here: Pope Benedict was the president of that commission.

So the statement he crafted with them is certainly relevant as to his personal opinion. Surely you aren't saying that as the president of the commission, he would help craft and then reslease a statement he disagreed with? Besides, as we saw before, the statement makes it clear that the agreement and the support for common descent aren't quotes of the scientific account, but are supported by the commision, headed by (now) Pope Benedict.

His personal opinions about evolution theory are not consistent with the idea that he accepts evolution theory as a whole,

To the extent that one sees evolution as requiring naturalistic belief, then of course not - he's the Pope. He supports evolution as Theistic Evolution, not as Atheistic Evolution.

the way that self-described theistic evolutionists usually do.

That of course depends on the particular theistic evolution supporter. From what I've seen, the only common difference between most TE supporters and the Popes view is that of Adam. Many TE supporters see Adam as a symbol for humans, while the Popes statements support the more Catholic view of Adam as the first transitional ape/human to cross the line to being human and be given a soul.

You can see that in yet another of his statements that supports Theistic Evolution, here:

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of "God". The first Thou that—however stammeringly—was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man ...
​

Pope Benedict, From the book Creation and Evolution, pg. 15.

That statement shows that he is describing the gradual evolution of humans from earlier hominids, describing the moment that line (the Rubicon) was crossed. Simply forming humans wholecloth from nothing is not only not scriptural, but doesn't fit his statement above.

There is a difference between accepting evolution in the mere sense of descent with modification,and accepting the theory of evolution,which is a narrative of natural history. If he were satisfied with the theory,he would not criticize it and cast doubt upon it as he does.

The only doubt he casts is on the idea that no God is needed. He constantly reminds us in his statements that the whole process of common descent from bacteria is supported and continued by the action of God, and that the evolution of the full human required the divine giving of a soul, which is beyond the scope of the pure scientific theory of evolution.

He nowhere casts doubt (and indeed explicity supports) the idea that humans evolved from ancient apes.

Scientific research is one thing,the theory of evolution is another.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

When you say God uses evolution to create humans,what kind of evolution do you mean,and how does God use natural it?

God supports and sustains the entire process, just as God supports and sustains the entire process of development of a human from sperm and egg.

Evolution can mean anything from the modifications that can be seen in comtemporary species to the complete metamorphoses of species described in evolution theory. And to say that God uses natural causes can mean either that he gives them ability to work on their own like a mechanism or that he personally acts upon them. The former opinion is that of Francis Bacon and deists,the latter view is that of the writers of scripture and the saints and of Catholic doctrine.

OK. God is not separate from them. God is in them, supporting and sustaining them. It sounds like you want to removed God from the world, and confine Him to the rare and often faked "miracle". That's a pretty small God.


God does not give humans souls at some point in a process,he creates humans immediately as unities of soul and body. The soul (anima) is the life and form of the body. It is what forms and animates the body in the first place. See sections 26-31 of Communion and Stewardship.

I read sections 26-31 (here is a link for the convenience of everyone: Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution), and everything is fully consistent with Theistic Evolution and the Catholic approach of Adam as the first tranisitional ape to evolve into a human.

More than that, do you have anything that says the body cannot be crafted first from pre-existing materials? After all , that's how it is described in genesis - that the body is made from the "earth" - quite a good fit for evolution from earlier forms, then given the soul from God.
​

You can see this in each of the quoted statements.

I don't see it. I see criticism and doubt.

The criticism and doubt is for the view of atheistic evolution - that evolution excludes or doesn't require God. The ideas of common descent from bacteria, the formation of man's body from earlier apes, and the divine granting of a soul are fully supported.

​

Of course the theory of evolution is not complete - no scientific theory ever is, that's how science works. Of course it isn't "proven", that's how science works, no theory is ever considered "proven". That goes for the idea of germs, atoms, and gravity too, by the way.

A theory is proven if it's claims can be demonstrated. Scientific claims about germs and atoms and the effects of gravity upon falling objects can often be demonstrated by experiment.

From a scientific standpoint, that's simply false. Scientific theories can never be proven. In common parlance, we often use the word "proven" to mean "established as virtually certain beyond a reasonable doubt". Evolution is certainly that well established, and the statements by the Pope show that he acknowleges that, while also being aware of the fact that no scientific theory is ever proven. It is a testament to the deep mind of our Holy Father that he is conveys both of these facts to us.

​

Your quoted article supports the earlier views expressed by His Holiness - that of theistic evolution = evolutionary creationism.

The Pope (rightly) constantly reminds us that a materialistic, atheistic view of evolution is not correct - that God is supporting the process at every turn.

A materialistic or naturalisitic view of evolution theory is the only one that
accords with the contents of the theory itself. The theory portrays natural causes as doing all the creating,

You don't think that God supports and sustains all of nature? You think that God has no hand in the development of a baby from sperm and egg (it seems that if you see it that way, then you must also support abortion)?

and it attributes to natural causes the ability to do certain things that they do not have the power to do.

We all (you, me, the Pope, everyone on this board, etc.) disagree with atheistic evolution, right?

It does not leave room for any supernatural causation. To bring God into the theory is superfluous and unnecessary for the theory,and it is illogical.

If you believe that God is not present in the natural world, that everything but the showman's miracle is atheistic, then you obviously aren't in accord with much of Catholic theology.


If the Pope denied evolution and common descent, he'd have to say that evolution and creationism are in conflict, because the evidence is overwhelming that evolution happened. But no - he repeats over and over that there is no conflict - because he accepts that evidence, and hence accepts common descent and the parentage of humans from apes, and insists that the correct view of evolution is that this is how God is creating. Here are his own words (my bold) :

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.
​

Yes,I've seen that quote before. What I said in another post applies here. The pope does not ususally distinguish between evolution as a concept and the scientific theory of evolution,or between micro-evolution,which is just speciation,and macro-evolution.

Of course he doesn't, because he recognizes that there is no difference between mico- and macro evolution, any more than there is a difference between micro inches and mega inches. The only place there is a qualitative difference is in the minds of evidence denying creationists, of which the Pope clearly isn't one.

So his comments cannot be taken as if he approves the theory.

Sure they can. He clearly and explicitly supports theistic evolution in statement after statement we've looked at, no where disagreeing except to exclude atheistic evolution (which I hope we all disagree with).

What he wants is a discussion with science in which reason is not limited to MN and which does not exclude faith. He knows that the theory proceeds from MN and that MN is a limitation on reason.

Of course. That's why he so often includes caveats to remind us that he is supporting Theistic Evolution, not Atheistic evolution.

The fact that His Holiness supports Theistic Evolution, now after some discussion here, can be seen in statements supporting common descent from bacteria, the transition of apes to humans many thousands of years ago, the granting of a soul, and so on. If you really, actually, still have any doubt that Pope Benedict XVI supports theistic evolution, we can put the statements in one post?

Papias

 

[rsblack]

I think your question is valid. How does one simultaneously believe in naturalism and the supernatural at the same time? This has been my conundrum. With my scientific background I understand the principles of the scientific method and have applied it in the laboratory. However, when it comes to origins the lines get fuzzier. The fossil record is there. What do we make of it. How does a YEC explain the occurrence of fossils and deep time? I have yet to hear a convincing argument from the YEC camp.

 

[Assyrian]

I think your question is valid. How does one simultaneously believe in naturalism and the supernatural at the same time?

It is very simple, it is called the doctrine of Creation. The Almighty God created an amazing universe that works according to the laws he established for it. It doesn't mean God can't operate beyond those laws in the universe in miracles, or use those laws to work through providence, working in all things according to his purpose, but it does mean the normal way we see the universe operating is through those natural processes, and if we see events and processes that appear to be following those natural laws, then why ever would we want to argue for miraculous explanations there is no evidence to even suggest?

This has been my conundrum. With my scientific background I understand the principles of the scientific method and have applied it in the laboratory. However, when it comes to origins the lines get fuzzier. The fossil record is there. What do we make of it. How does a YEC explain the occurrence of fossils and deep time? I have yet to hear a convincing argument from the YEC camp.

 

[shernren]

Sorry that I keep harping on parts of your post, I keep finding little bits that I can't help amplifying. Please do let me know if you think I am ever taking things out of context.

Because appearances can be misleading. The functioning of a cell looks like the natural processes are self-moved,but when I consider what kind of power it would take to create that working order,I do not find it logical to believe that natural causes are sufficient,because I have no reason to believe they have that power.

The last two clauses interest me greatly.

"I do not find it logical to believe that natural causes are sufficient [to create the workings of the cell]"
and
"I have no reason to believe that [natural causes] have that power [to create the workings of the cell]".

Do you agree that these two clauses are logically equivalent?