Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[Anthony022071]

What matters is how you view "naturalistic". Is "natural" = without God? Science can't answer the question. It's a limitation of science called Methodological Naturalism (see below for how MN is not "without God")

Natural does not mean without God,but naturalism,whether in the context of science or otherwise,is the view that only nature exists.

Now, deists, atheists, and creationists answer the question "Yes!" If something is "natural", then God is absent. Science doesn't tell you that. They got that on their own.

Where do you get the idea that creationists think that if something is natural that God is absent from it?

The irony here is that Christians felt that evolution rescued Christianity from deism:
"The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day, is that which represents him as an occasional visitor. Science has pushed the deist's God further and further away, and at the moment when it seemed as if He would be thrust out all together, Darwinism appeared, and, under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.

I don't know anyone who thinks that evolution rescued Christianity from deism. That doesn't make sense. Belief in the theory of evolution causes Christians to have a deistic view of nature,because it makes divine providence and continual creation unnecessary and superfluous.

The opposite is true. What you are stating is god-of-the-gaps. God is present only if there is no scientific explanation. And god-of-the-gaps and that natural = without God is the basis for deism and atheism.

No,I'm not making a god of the gaps argument. God is always present to nature whether or not there are scientific explanations. The question is where
is it necessary to acknowledge the power of God. It is not necessary to acknowledge the power of God when explaining the effects of gravity or of light,because those phenomena are not supernatural in themselves. But life,order,thought and the origination of matter are supernatural as well as natural phenomena. They have to do with power over nature.

The god of the gaps way of thinking is not a basis for deism and atheism.
It is natural for believers to suspect divine intervention where natural explanations do not seem sufficient. If a superstitious hillbilly says that God sends the rains,he is right,regardless of his ignorance of the natural processes involved or what scientists know about the weather.

You can believe this and also believe what the Bible, medieval theologians, and the Catholic Church teaches about God and the natural world. None of those use god-of-the-gaps.

They don't use mechanisms of the gaps either.

In all of those, God sustains the universe. That means that what is "natural" requires God just as much as a miracle.

It is God's creative and providential activity.

But the "naturalistic view" is not science. It is a philosophy.

It is neither science nor philosophy. Naturalism per se is a simple belief or view that only nature exists. That does not amount to philosophy.

Science is only able to deal with the natural component. It can't even comment on whether there is, or isn't, a supernatural component.

The policy of methodological naturalism determines that there will not be a supernatural component to explanations.

Oh no. The chemisty has been seen. In fact, I can give you a recipe to make life from non-living chemicals in your kitchen or backyard. You can see it for yourself.

Well,this is news. Have you announced your findings to the scientific community?

 

[Anthony022071]

lucaspa's response to this is spot on. To say that God is or is not involved with the regular processes of nature that can be investigated scientifically is a philosophical or theological statement that goes beyond the bounds of science. Science is agnostic, not deistic. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Agnosticism is a form of atheism. To acknowledge God's power in nature is logical,even before it is a philosophical or theological view. Scientific explanations ought to be logical,connecting effects to appropriate causes.

 

[Anthony022071]

And that is exactly what theistic evolutionists believe about evolution. Biodiversity and descent with modification bring about new species by the power of God working through natural means without human intervention. The theory of evolution should not be interpreted to mean nature is self-sufficient.

The theory does portray nature as self-sufficient,by excluding God's power in nature and attributing natural mechanisms with powers they do not have.

The theory cannot be summed up as merely descent with modification. It is primarily a narrative of the history of all organisms,and it includes such claims as the common descent of all species,and natural selection working upon mutations to produce all variety. Descent with modification is something that has always been observed. That is not what the argument over evolution is about.

 

[Anthony022071]

If you believe God to be present everywhere, and in control of even secondary causes, then how do you square that with your earlier statement?

In one instance, you say that natural explanations exclude God, and in another, you state that they do not.

I didn't say that. The naturalistic explanations of science exclude God,which is not the same as any and all explanations that use natural causes.

 

[shernren]

I didn't say that. The naturalistic explanations of science exclude God,which is not the same as any and all explanations that use natural causes.

How might an explanation that uses natural causes not be naturalistic?

Or, to be concrete: I can explain the weather by means of natural causes. Does that mean I view the weather naturalistically?

 

[Mallon]

The naturalistic explanations of science exclude God

Only if you want them to, my friend.

 

[Mallon]

Agnosticism is a form of atheism.

Well, I guess if you're going to conflate agnosticism with atheism, there's little wonder why you think science does away with God.

 

[gluadys]

The theory does portray nature as self-sufficient,by excluding God's power in nature and attributing natural mechanisms with powers they do not have.

No, the theory doesn't.

Atheists and materialists interpreting the theory in line with their (un)belief do. And this interpretation depends on asserting that "natural" means "without God/without divine action".

As believers, we have just as much right to interpret the theory of evolution in line with our theist beliefs as materialists do to interpret the theory of evolution in line with their philosophic beliefs.

Science has no capacity to judge which philosophical treatment of the theory of evolution is nearer the truth.

The theory cannot be summed up as merely descent with modification. It is primarily a narrative of the history of all organisms,and it includes such claims as the common descent of all species,and natural selection working upon mutations to produce all variety. Descent with modification is something that has always been observed. That is not what the argument over evolution is about.

Actually, the theory can be summed up as descent with modification--together with a description of how those modifications happen. What you are doing is amalgamating the concept of how evolution happens--which is, strictly speaking, the theory of evolution by natural selection--and the historical sequence of life forms produced by this process. The latter is what the study of phylogeny is all about.

The philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, IIRC, has proposed that for clarity, we distinguish three meanings of evolution:
1. the fact of evolution (it is a fact that species change over time)
2. the process of evolution (mutations, natural selection, speciation, etc.--IOW the mechanisms of how species change over time). This is, in a strict sense what the theory of evolution sets out.
3. the history of evolution (in what order did evolutionary changes occur? how are various species and groups of species related to each other through lines of descent? IOW, can we work out a phylogeny--a genealogy of species--in much the same way we do a family tree for individuals?)

Broadly speaking "evolution" or "theory of evolution" encompasses all three, but for clarity, it is wise to note when one is dealing with 2 and when one is dealing with 3 as they are based on different lines of evidence. IOW, a weakness in an argument about how an evolutionary mechanism works does not undermine a proposed phylogenetic relationship, nor does a weakness in a proposed phylogenetic relationship undermine the theory of evolution from the perspective of whether evolution happens or how it works.

I didn't say that. The naturalistic explanations of science exclude God,which is not the same as any and all explanations that use natural causes.

How might an explanation that uses natural causes not be naturalistic?

Or, to be concrete: I can explain the weather by means of natural causes. Does that mean I view the weather naturalistically?

When words come from the same family, and also change meaning over time, it often happens that people are using the same words with different implications. I know most people hate semantic arguments, but sometimes they are crucial to understanding what is really at issue.

Here we need to sort out the meanings of these related terms:

nature
natural
naturalist
naturalism
naturalistic

From a Christian perspective, we could say that by "nature" we mean "that which God created; all that is not God is created by God and constitutes 'nature'." (note that this would include angelic beings as part of "nature".) More narrowly, we could define "nature" as "the material order which God created". This would exclude angelic beings and limit the term "nature" to what exists physically. (Interestingly, "physical" and "physics" are derived from the Greek "physis" meaning "nature".)

I think most of us would agree that by "natural" we mean "what pertains to nature" and by the narrower meaning above, that would mean "what pertains to the physical, material creation."

Another meaning of "natural" in this respect is "not artificial", that is "not produced by human artifice". We recognize that a television set is "not natural". It takes humans to produce them. Archeologists and paleontologists need to be able to distinguish between what humans must have made and what could occur without human action.

("art" originally included everything we include under technology as well as imaginative art. The Greek term "techne" referred to anything made with skill from arrowheads to poetry)

It is also interesting to note that the natural/artificial distinction applies specifically to human activity. A man building a house is engaging in artifice. A bird building a nest, or a beaver building a dam are acting naturally.

From this standpoint, that "natural" excludes specifically human artifice, it follows that the world of nature is pre-eminently the field of divine activity. And that is the way nature is presented in the bible. Humans feed domesticated cattle and chickens, but God feeds the lions and the ravens. And God does so naturally. (i.e. without special supernatural intervention).

We might note as well that Darwin's choice of "natural selection" to describe how certain organisms get preferential treatment in the struggle to survive is also grounded in this natural/artificial distinction (for he contrasts it with selective breeding by humans) and not, as is often assumed, in a distinction of natural vs. supernatural.

naturalist: this is a word that has completely changed its meaning since the 1800s.

Since "nature" is the physical world and "natural" is what pertains to nature, the study of nature was called from medieval times up to the late 19th century "natural philosophy". Only recently was that phrase changed to "science". And any person systematically studying nature was called a "naturalist". That term has been transmuted to "scientist". When "naturalist" had the simple meaning of "one who studies nature" there was, of course, absolutely no suggestion that such a person was necessarily a believer or not.

However, also in the 19th century, a philosophical view arose that "nature--the physical world--constitutes the sum total of all existence, all reality".

This view became known as "naturalism" and of course, a person holding this view is what most of us mean now by "naturalist".

Now this philosophical view transcends the issue of evolution, and even science as a whole. Science (natural philosophy) is a study of what is natural, of nature. It does not demand any acknowledgement that its field of study be the only existing reality. Evolution, as part of science, is part of the study of nature; it is not a commitment to a view that nothing but the physical exists or that all things (ideas, thought, spirit) are grounded in physical causes, or that physical processes are never subject to non-physical causation.

Which takes us to "naturalistic". This term tends to be used in two ways. One way is "explanations that refer to natural/physical causes without commentary on whether other causes exist". Another way is "explanations based on a philosophy of naturalism, i.e. the rejection that there exist any causes other than physical causes".

And these are seldom distinguished.

Personally, I think the first meaning is part of a deplorable tendency to use longer than necessary terminology (like "utilize" for "use"). The "-istic" suffix is unnecessary in this context, and it would be clearer to say that "explanations which refer to natural/physical causes" are "natural" rather than "naturalistic".

That would free up "naturalistic" to refer exclusively to "explanations based on a philosophy of naturalism".

However, since I can't dictate to all English-speakers how to use words precisely, we will have to put up with the ambiguity of "naturalistic".

The important thing to note is that it IS an ambiguous term.

For one person, such as Antony, it may enshrine the whole concept of philosophical naturalism--the limitation of all existence to what is physical. That assumption means that a causal explanation couched in terms of physical cause and effect amounts to a denial of the divine.

For another person, such as shernren, it may simply mean that the list of causes enumerated are those of nature, without prejudice as to the relationship of God and nature. That sense is completely compatible with the biblical view that nature is the sphere of God's activity as distinct from human activity.

I expect that Antony and shernren are in closer agreement than is obvious, but that agreement is masked as they are using the word "naturalistic" to encompass a different range of meanings.

Only if you want them to, my friend.

Exactly.

 

[Papias]

Anthony, I noticed you are Catholic. Are you aware that His Holiness, our Father the Pope, described the common descent of all life on earth as "virtually certain"?

A longer section of the quote is here:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain.......

- then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI, July 2004


What do you think about the idea that all life on earth, including humans, share a common ancestor who lived 3.5 to 4 billion years ago, as His Holiness stated? Do you think the Pope "excludes God"?

Papias

 

[lucaspa]

Natural does not mean without God,but naturalism,whether in the context of science or otherwise,is the view that only nature exists.

But you are also using "natural" to mean "without God". That's the whole god-of-the-gaps thing.

I was hoping you would read about Methodological Naturalism before you made this statement. There are 2 types of naturalism. One is methodological, and that means that science is limited to looking only at the natural component of causes. The other is philosophical naturalism, which is the belief that only natural exists.
"Science as practiced today is methodologically naturalistic: it explains the natural world using only natural causes. Science cannot explain (or test explanations about) the supernatural. There is also an independent sort of naturalism, philosophical naturalism, a belief (not science, but belief) that the universe consists only of matter and energy and that there are no supernatural beings, forces, or causes." Eugenie C. Scott in review of Johnsons's book. http://natcenscied.org/aladont.htm

Science doesn't know whether only the natural exists. Science can only look at the natural, because we can't control for the supernatural.

The policy of methodological naturalism determines that there will not be a supernatural component to explanations.

It determines that we can't look for a supernatural component. That's very different than saying "there will not be". There very well may be, but since we never have a natural process where we know the supernatural is missing, science can't know.

Do you really want science to be able to say "there will not be a supernatural component"? That means science is going to be able to falsify God. It means that you are only going to be able to put God into gaps that science can't explain. That's a huge restriction on God.

Where do you get the idea that creationists think that if something is natural that God is absent from it?

From you. You just said so above: "there will not be a supernatural component"

Also, look where you tend to put creationism, such as abiogenesis. You think that is a "gap" that science can't explain. So what do you thinks happens in abiogenesis? God performs a miracle, right?

[qoute]I don't know anyone who thinks that evolution rescued Christianity from deism. [/quote]
Did you read the quote? AL Moore did. Let's face it, your circle of who you know just doesn't include those people.

Belief in the theory of evolution causes Christians to have a deistic view of nature,because it makes divine providence and continual creation unnecessary and superfluous.

Evolution is continuous creation. Continuous creation of new species. Instead, special creation makes continual creation unnecessary and substitutes it with occasional visits by God to create new species. That's deism. It is Special Creation that is deistic; God created all the species and then doesn't have anything else to do with them. I'm afraid you got it backwards.

No,I'm not making a god of the gaps argument. God is always present to nature whether or not there are scientific explanations. The question is where
is it necessary to acknowledge the power of God. It is not necessary to acknowledge the power of God when explaining the effects of gravity or of light,because those phenomena are not supernatural in themselves. But life,order,thought and the origination of matter are supernatural as well as natural phenomena. They have to do with power over nature.

See? there is your god-of-the-gaps. You put God only where you have a "gap" so that you think they are supernatural. It turns out that none of those you think are "supernatural as well as natural" are. They are all like gravity and light. Notice that you limit God's power over nature to just a few things. God doesn't have power over gravity? By your argument, no. But that limits God.

EVERY "natural" phenomenon is also "supernatural as well" -- to a Christian. That is what you are missing. Gravity is supernatural as well. So is light. Creationism has changed things so that you don't view gravity as also supernatural. Creationism is atheism in disguise. Here is how Christians view things like gravity:
"A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed. Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God." Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, I, 2-3, 1726, quoted in CC Gillespie, Genesis and Geology, 1959.

You don't have gravity immediately depending on the will of God, do you? You say "those phenomena are not supernatural in themselves".

The god of the gaps way of thinking is not a basis for deism and atheism.

It's absolutely essential for atheism. Atheism, to be atheism, must believe that "natural" is not supernatural. If natural is dependent on the will of God, then there is God and atheism is toast.

It is natural for believers to suspect divine intervention where natural explanations do not seem sufficient.

And that is god-of-the-gaps. And it is wrong for believers to do so. You example is a miracle: God is interferring with nature to make it rain when otherwise it would not do so. But for you to think abiogenesis, order, thought, etc. are supernatural and there are no "natural" explanations for them is wrong as religion. It is unBiblical and it makes God a creature of the universe. It denies that God created a complete universe. Let me have a Christian theologian explain it to you:
"There are profound biblical objections to such a "God-of-the-gaps," as this understanding of God's relation to the universe has come to be called. By "gap" it is meant that no member or members of the universe can be found to account for regularly occurring phenoma in nature. God is inserted in the gaps which could be occupied by members of the universe. This is theologically improper because God, as creator of the universe, is not a member of the universe. God can never properly be used in scientific accounts, which are formulated in terms of the relations between members of the universe, because that would reduce God to the status of a creature. According to a Christian conception of God as creator of a universe that is rational through and through, there are no missing relations between the members of nature. If, in our study of nature, we run into what seems to be an instance of a connection missing between members of nature, the Christian doctrine of creation implies that we should keep looking for one. ...But, according to the doctrine of creation, we are never to postulate God as the *immediate* cause of any *regular* [emphases in original] occurrence in nature. In time, a "God of the gaps" was seen to be bad science as well as bad theology. Science now is programamatically committed to a view of nature in which there are no gaps between members of the universe."
Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, pp. 45-46.

It is neither science nor philosophy. Naturalism per se is a simple belief or view that only nature exists. That does not amount to philosophy.

You seem to be nitpicking over terms here. Philosophical naturalism (which is the belief or view that only nature exists) is either a belief or a philosophy, whatever you want to call it.

lucaspa: Science is only able to deal with the natural component. It can't even comment on whether there is, or isn't, a supernatural component.

The policy of methodological naturalism determines that there will not be a supernatural component to explanations.

Didn't you read what I posted?
1. Methodological Naturalism is not a "policy". It's not something that we as scientists can vote to change. It comes directly from how we do experiments. If you can figure out a way to make experimental controls for God, then let us know. By that I mean a way to keep God out of test tubes, or put Him into one.
2. Didn't you read "It [science] can't comment on..." That is not at all the same as "determines that there will not be a supernatural component". Such a component may well exist. It's that science can't tell if it exists or not.

Think of it this way: All you have is the Hubble Telescope and you want to look at mitochondria. The Hubble is not going to be able to see mitochondria within cells. Does that mean it "determines that there will be" no mitochondria? Of course not!

Well,this is news. Have you announced your findings to the scientific community?

Those findings have been out there for quite a while. Start by reading these 2 websites and we can discuss it further if you wish:
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/

 

[lucaspa]

Agnosticism is a form of atheism.

Huxley coined the term "agnostic" precisely to distinguish it from atheism. Agnosticism is neutral on the question "Does God exist". Really, really neutral. Agnosticism is "do not know whether God exists or not". It's about knowledge. We all recognize that our belief in God is faith, right?

To acknowledge God's power in nature is logical,even before it is a philosophical or theological view.

It's logical for theists. But the problem is that our belief in God doesn't come from science. It comes from outside science. The evidence is 1) God's intervention in history and 2) our personal experience of God. Neither of those evidences is, or can be, part of science.

Scientific explanations ought to be logical,connecting effects to appropriate causes.

And they are. Filling in the connections with natural things is something science got from Christianity. It is Christianity that teaches us we should not use God as a proximate cause for regularly occurring members of the universe, such as non-life or life, or species.

 

[lucaspa]

The theory does portray nature as self-sufficient,by excluding God's power in nature and attributing natural mechanisms with powers they do not have.

The theory does not. Some atheists try to portray evolution this way.

Let's go back to Origin of Species. First let's look in the Fontispiece. Darwin has 3 quotes there. Two are from scientist-ministers and the third is from a minister. We'll look at one from the scientist-minister and the minister:
"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.

Look at that carefully. Gravity is a "general law". You said it was not "supernatural".

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Look at this very carefully. Darwin included this to emphasize that natural selection also "requires ... an intelligent agent to render it so" When you say gravity is "not supernatural", you are denying that God is required for it to work.

Finally, let's look at this quote from near the end of the book. The bold is mine:
"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species,pg. 449.

"Secondary causes" is a Christian term, not a scientific one. You should look it up. Here are some places that can help you with it:
http://www.stjohnadulted.org/The_01.htm#Thomas%20Aquinas:%20God%20Acts%20Through%20Secondary%20Causes
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/threat.html
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/o_helweg/science_andor_faith.html

What Darwin is saying here is an extension of the 2 quotes in the Fontispiece: God established evolution like He established other "laws" and that evolution continually requires an "intelligent entity" to work.

The theory cannot be summed up as merely descent with modification.

Actually, it can. The "narrative" you speak of is tracing the hereditary tree that results from "descent with modification".

natural selection working upon mutations to produce all variety.

First, the theory doesn't claim this. Some evolutionists (mostly Dawkins) have tried to claim that all traits in all species are the result of natural selection, but that has been shown to be false. Gould's concept of "spandrels" has some validity (even tho his inspiration from architecture fails). For instance, pandas have spurs on the bone on their ankles corresponding to the bone that has the "thumb" in the forepaw. The thumb is the result of natural selection, but the spur on the ankle is the result that development of the forelimb and hindlimb use many of the same genes.

Second, genetic drift can produce variety. Genetic drift is chance.

Third, natural selection works on variation. Mutation is one source of variation. But in sexually reproducing species, sexual recombination is a much greater source of variation. Recombination has enough variation to produce new species without any mutations.

Fourth, natural selection produces the designs in organisms. The eye to see, the ear to hear, the heart to pump blood, etc. But there are some traits that are not designs.

 

[lucaspa]

I didn't say that. The naturalistic explanations of science exclude God,which is not the same as any and all explanations that use natural causes.

Please give us a few explanation that uses natural causes and include God.

If you have a natural explanation that doesn't mention God, is that the same as "excluding God"?

 

[Mallon]

Please give us a few explanation that uses natural causes and include God.

+God

 

[lucaspa]

Actually, Jesus is quoting both Genesis 1 and 2 to describe Adam and Eve:

Mark 10:6-7: Jesus said - “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife’”.

Genesis 1:27: “Male and female He created them.”
Genesis 2:24: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife.”

I was referring to the "male and female He created them". And that, in Hebrew, is "men" and "women". Not Adam and Eve.

The reason Jesus uses the two stories is that he is talking about the theological messages. it does not show, and cannot, that the humans in Gensis 1 are Adam and Eve.

Jesus is concerned about divorce, not creation. So he picks part of each creation story that helps him in his theological argument against divorce. Because God created humans men and women (no matter by evolution), marriage should not be able to be dissolved simply because the man no longer wants it.

Why don’t you stop putting words in Jesus’ mouth, will ya?
I reject your peer-review bible and substitute it for the Holy Bible:

“Sin entered the world through one man...many died by the trespass of the one man...by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man...the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men...through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners...For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” (Rom 5:12-19, 1 Cor 15:21-22).

And why don't you read all of Paul instead of a bit out of context. For instance, you should have looked at the OT to realize that Paul is saying something forbidden in scripture, that the sons can be punished for the sins of the fathers:
Deut. 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the
children be put to death for the fathers
2Chron.25:4 "But he slew not their children, but [did] as [it is] written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin."

Then you need to read more by Paul:
1 Corinth 15:3: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
2 Corinth 5:21: "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”
Gal 1:4: "Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: "

Sorry, but I reject your narrow "proof text" Bible.

Except that this contradicts the Bible verses I quoted above. So, no thanks.

And you contradict many other Bible verses. So, no thanks.

So you believe three day old corpses can come to life despite no scientific evidence they can.

You are confusing fact and theory. I know I've done this for you at least once, Doveaman, but let me do it again.

Scientifically, what you have with the dead bodies is a THEORY, based upon the individual data points of dead bodies we have observed. The *theory* states that a person dead will not come back to life. However, you can never prove a theory, you can only test it. So far, all the data supports that theory. BUT, Yeshu's resurrection is DATA. That is the key point in the relationship between data and theory: Data can always overthrow theory. But you cannot use theory reject data. You cannot generalize from what you have observed to reject the next observation.

Now, Yeshu's supposed resurrection is not solid data. It happened a long time ago and it left no physical consequences around that we can objectively, intersubjectively (scientifically) study today. So, science is allowed to view the event as an anomaly and do not have to revise the theory. But we simply CANNOT use the theory to say the data (the resurrection) never happened.

Let me give you another example of theory and data. We have released several rocks and seen them fall. So we devise a theory of gravity that says that ALL unsupported objects will fall. This works well as we drop bricks, limbs, seashells, leaves, etc. But then we try a helium balloon. It goes up. Do we deny that it goes up? NO. Instead, we revise the theory to: all objects that mass more than the air they displace will fall when unsupported. The THEORY gets changed. In the case of Yeshu, IF we could find objecitve data to confirm the event happened, then our theory would be: all humans who die remain dead except when deity interferes and reverses the process.

So you believe donkeys are capable of talking despite no scientific evidence they can.

Same thing as above. Donkeys, by themselves, are not capable of speech. They don't have the FOXP2 allele, for one thing. However, the story is not talking about an ordinary donkey; it is talking about a miracle. God intervenes so that Balaam's mule (not donkey, BTW) can talk. So, I believe a mule with the intervention of God is capable of talking. Different theory, isn't it?

 

[lucaspa]

+God

ROFL. I don't think Anthony is going to accept an equation with God in the denominator! C'mon, shouldn't God at least be in the numerator?

 

[lucaspa]

Science has no capacity to judge which philosophical treatment of the theory of evolution is nearer the truth.

Right.

Actually, the theory can be summed up as descent with modification--together with a description of how those modifications happen.

That is descriptions. We tend to think of natural selection as the only way to get modification, but genetic drift also modifies populations.

Natural selection is the only way we get the designs in living organisms.

The philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, IIRC, has proposed that for clarity, we distinguish three meanings of evolution:
1. the fact of evolution (it is a fact that species change over time)
2. the process of evolution (mutations, natural selection, speciation, etc.--IOW the mechanisms of how species change over time). This is, in a strict sense what the theory of evolution sets out.
3. the history of evolution (in what order did evolutionary changes occur? how are various species and groups of species related to each other through lines of descent? IOW, can we work out a phylogeny--a genealogy of species--in much the same way we do a family tree for individuals?)

Ruse is condensing the five theories that Darwin proposed and which we include in the term "evolution". You might find Mayr's listing of those theories more useful because it is more complete:
"1. The nonconstancy of species (the basic theory of evolution)
2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors (branching evolution).
3.The gradualness of evolution (no saltations, no discontinuities)
4.The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity)
5. Natural selection." Ernst Mayr, What Evolution IS. pg 86

Another meaning of "natural" in this respect is "not artificial", that is "not produced by human artifice". We recognize that a television set is "not natural". It takes humans to produce them. Archeologists and paleontologists need to be able to distinguish between what humans must have made and what could occur without human action.
We might note as well that Darwin's choice of "natural selection" to describe how certain organisms get preferential treatment in the struggle to survive is also grounded in this natural/artificial distinction (for he contrasts it with selective breeding by humans) and not, as is often assumed, in a distinction of natural vs. supernatural.

Yes, this is the sense that we have natural selection. Darwin was using "natural" in contrast to the artificial selection being used conducted by human breeders. Natural selection happens in nature without human action. As you say, it is not about natural vs supernatural. It is natural vs human action.

In general, the term should be Darwinian selection.

From this standpoint, that "natural" excludes specifically human artifice, it follows that the world of nature is pre-eminently the field of divine activity. And that is the way nature is presented in the bible. Humans feed domesticated cattle and chickens, but God feeds the lions and the ravens. And God does so naturally. (i.e. without special supernatural intervention).

VERY good. I'll have to remember this. Mind if I also use it?

When "naturalist" had the simple meaning of "one who studies nature" there was, of course, absolutely no suggestion that such a person was necessarily a believer or not.

And, in fact, nearly all of them were. Not only that, but prior to 1850-1900, most were ministers. One of Christianity's ways of supporting science was the monetary support of naturalists. Prior to the later 1800s, there was no mechanism to get paid as a "naturalist". You either had to be wealthy or you had to have a paying day job. Minister/priest was the most common job.

As you noted later, before this what we call science was called "natural philosophy" or just "philosophy". This can be seen in the 3rd quote in Origin's Fontispiece from Francis Bacon in 1620:
"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy [science]; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

Which takes us to "naturalistic". This term tends to be used in two ways. One way is "explanations that refer to natural/physical causes without commentary on whether other causes exist". ...
Personally, I think the first meaning is part of a deplorable tendency to use longer than necessary terminology (like "utilize" for "use"). The "-istic" suffix is unnecessary in this context, and it would be clearer to say that "explanations which refer to natural/physical causes" are "natural" rather than "naturalistic".

I tend to agree. However, because of the second use of "naturalistic", even the use of "natural" often needs that "without commentary on whether other causes exist"

Both atheists and creationists, for their own reasons, want "natural" and "naturalistic" to mean "other causes don't exist". Creationists, in order to scare fellow Christians that science is atheistic and atheists because it misuses science to back their beliefs.

For one person, such as Antony, it may enshrine the whole concept of philosophical naturalism--the limitation of all existence to what is physical. That assumption means that a causal explanation couched in terms of physical cause and effect amounts to a denial of the divine.

We can hope that Anthony will listen to us and accept that there are different ways to use "naturalistic" and that it doesn't automatically mean "denial of the divine".

For another person, such as shernren, it may simply mean that the list of causes enumerated are those of nature, without prejudice as to the relationship of God and nature. That sense is completely compatible with the biblical view that nature is the sphere of God's activity as distinct from human activity.

This is the technical view of science. Now, the issue is also complicated because we have militant atheist scientists like Dawkins, Myers, Atkins, etc. who want to mislead people that science is philosophically naturalistic. Again, hopefully Anthony and others will listen to us that this is their view is based in their atheism and that they are misrepresenting science.

 

[Greg1234]

Well, I guess if you're going to conflate agnosticism with atheism,

Indifference to God, is the opposite of God. Though the intensity of that indifference might vary, it begins with indifference.

there's little wonder why you think science does away with God.

Science cannot do away with God. Science is merely the study and documentation through testing of cause and effect. Wherever a cause and an effect is, science is. Naturalism is merely the unfalsifiable claim that all phenomena have a purely naturalistic cause. It attempts to intertwine itself with a method of falsification and through such breeding to produce the corrupted progeny you insist on calling "science" today.

The god-of-gaps claim is equally absurd as it first assumes that the gap is to be filled by a naturalistic process. All modes of inquiry in their various forms fill a particular niche and as a result generate a "gap" throughout all disciplines impaired in attempting inquiry. Astronomy is astronomy. Astronomy-of-the-gaps is the myopic elevation of marine biology to explain what it cannot.

Naturally, in materialism, you are inclined to pit every discovery against metaphysics. The process whereby clouds formed is evidence against the existence of God, but not evidence against plate tectonics, gravity, shipbuilding, computer processing, or any other processes which are not involved yet still persist undeterred. Your bias is showing.

Darwinism fails to account for life because that's the way it is. At some point explanations having purely visible causes would meet a threshold and that threshold would be demonstrated with the data. You cannot use the myriad of previously established purely visible phenomena to garner momentum and attempt to burst through the doors of science. The data key is still needed and creationists have it dangling around their neck. If you want it, then come and get it, and stop your futile head banging.

 

[Anthony022071]

Anthony, I noticed you are Catholic. Are you aware that His Holiness, our Father the Pope, described the common descent of all life on earth as "virtually certain"?

Yes,I have argued about that document with evolution supporters on Catholic Answers. The paragraph you quoted is a statement of the "scientific account" of origins,not an assent to it by the Church or Cardinal Ratzinger. It is the scientific community that is virtually certain about it,not the Church or the current pope. The Church's position on the origin of life is given in some of the paragraphs that precede and follow.

Section 64 says: "In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbationof 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."

Now,the theory of evolution as it is commonly known is indeed materialist or naturalisitc,reductionist and neo-Darwinian. Its narrative cannot be interpreted so as to harmonize with the doctrines of creation and divine providence. The theory itself will not allow for nature to be dependent upon God's power,and it makes supernatural causation unnecessary anyway because it has natural "mechanisms" and processes doing God's work of creating and sustaining all organisms. And yes,I know that the theory does not mention God. It attributes to mechanisms and processes alone the ability to produce and sustain organisms,whereas the doctrines of creation and divine providence,which are comfirmed by reason,hold that God creates and sustains them.

What do you think about the idea that all life on earth, including humans, share a common ancestor who lived 3.5 to 4 billion years ago, as His Holiness stated? Do you think the Pope "excludes God"?

I don't believe that all organisms have a common ancestor. There is no logical necessity in believing it,because there is nothing to prevent many different organisms from coming into existence separately and having many physical characterisitics in common. The similarities in bone structure and genetics between different species do not say anything about common ancestry. "Descent" is about lineage through acts of reproduction.

 

[Papias]

Anthony wrote:

The paragraph you quoted is a statement of the "scientific account" of origins,not an assent to it by the Church or Cardinal Ratzinger. It is scientific community that is virtually certain about it,not the Church or the current pope.

Except that what you describe is not what the Pope says. The Pope is quite clear in that statement which parts are views of scientists in the text. Even those, he endorses by repeating them without disagreement. Specifically, you can see from text that the items in blue, below, are the views of the Pope:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

After all, a simple repetition of the view of a scientist wouldn't begin with "while there little consensus among scientists.....". By talking about scientists as a separate group, he's clearly talking for himself and not for them.

Besides, as you know, he's got all kinds of other statements in support of theistic evolution - it's not like that's the only one. He routinely supports the idea of common descent, while also repeating often that evolution is guided by God, as God's way of creating, and is not an atheistic or materialistic process.

Papias