My Official Evolutionary Position

[shernren]

TalkOrigins presents "facts" that some scientists disagree with. AiG presents "facts" which nearly all scientists disagree with. ... your call.

Haha take your time.

 

[Smidlee]

Yet this is because "intelligents" isn't allow in science especially in biology as the definition of science now stands. You can point out design in biology but point this design to intelligents is againest modern definition. This is why it's unscientific to claim "God did it" since it points to intelligent yet it's perfectly scientific to claim "Evolution did it" because it's stupid and blind. Notice also how hard Talkorigin attack Noah's ark (even though it's claim this sitre full of christians) as a impossibility yet heavily defends abiogenesis and defends the evolution can produce flagellum.
This was done by supernatural-selection. Probably the reason why stuff doesn't evolve like this anymore it becuase there too much Krypton(ite) in the atmosphere.
P.S. just because scientist has to have this blind spot of seeing the Creator and intelligent design in nature doesn't I have to since I'm not a scientist. This is also true in politics, while politics have to be careful what they say and how they say it doesn't mean I have to be blind or restrain the same way. (Ex. Bush can never admit we are fighting in Iraq becuase of oil which I agree oil is an important resourse.)

 

[gluadys]

Yet this is because "intelligents" isn't allow in science especially in biology as the definition of science now stands. You can point out design in biology but point this design to intelligents is againest modern definition. This is why it's unscientific to claim "God did it" since it points to intelligent yet it's perfectly scientific to claim "Evolution did it" because it's stupid and blind.

If you want to point to an intelligence which is responsible for something, the first order of business is to provide evidence that the intelligent agent exists. The second order of business is to show that this intelligent agent is responsible for this event. When the intelligent agent is God, that cannot be done.

Evolution is not an intelligent agent that causes events. It is not even a stupid agent which causes things. Evolution is not a cause. It is a process.

Furthermore it is a process which could have been designed by an intelligent agent such as God. It is a process which, for all we know, is controlled and guided by God.

I don't see how describing a process which is possibly the work of God in any way excludes God.

 

[Smidlee]

The only god which involve in evolution is the god of incredible luck. Any part of evolution which is a process can be demonstrated by what can't be proven is if human are a separate creation or evolved from ape-like creatures. This is based on faith ; one in naturalism , the other in a creator. This is almost the same argument about salvation as if it by works then it's not by grace and visa versa, If our origins is by evolution alone then no intelligents or God is required.
It sounds like to me you are trying to have it both ways.

 

[gluadys]

If our origins is by evolution alone then no intelligents or God is required.
It sounds like to me you are trying to have it both ways.

Why would any Christian consider that our origin is by evolution alone?

Even the theory of evolution doesn't say evolution is a process that happens by itself. A person can believe that if they choose, but their belief is not part of the theory. It is a personal opinion, not science.

 

[Critias]

If you want to point to an intelligence which is responsible for something, the first order of business is to provide evidence that the intelligent agent exists. The second order of business is to show that this intelligent agent is responsible for this event. When the intelligent agent is God, that cannot be done.

Evolution is not an intelligent agent that causes events. It is not even a stupid agent which causes things. Evolution is not a cause. It is a process.

Furthermore it is a process which could have been designed by an intelligent agent such as God. It is a process which, for all we know, is controlled and guided by God.

I don't see how describing a process which is possibly the work of God in any way excludes God.

I think you just solved the problem for the this whole debate. In order for science to conclude that all we see is from an intelligent designer, it must first be able to provide evidence of this designer. Since, science will never be able to provide such evidence, it will never conclude that God did create.

Therefore, science will never give God credit for what God has done. So, what Paul teaches that what we see is to proclaim the Glory of God, science will never agree to this. It will only run in the opposite direction of this.

Excellent point gluady!

 

[gluadys]

Therefore, science will never give God credit for what God has done.

Nor will it ever deny God credit for what God has done. What we make of science will depend on our theology. Science will not dictate what we are to believe about God. Except on one point: a god-of-the-gaps is not compatible with science. As a 19th century theologian put it:

"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. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.​

As a Christian, which option do you accept?

 

[Smidlee]

I think you just solved the problem for the this whole debate. In order for science to conclude that all we see is from an intelligent designer, it must first be able to provide evidence of this designer. Since, science will never be able to provide such evidence, it will never conclude that God did create.

Not so fast, I see a double standard here. Science today deals with a lot of stuff that can't be tested directly yet it still called science ; Ex. black holes, (even ape to man can't be proven directly) yet makes predictions what would happen at the event horizon and look for hints of gravity then make claims of black holes. The old agreement "God of the gaps" work well 200 years ago because the lack of our knowledge of natural laws but since then we have closed the knowledge gap of the natural world. Yet as we closing the gaps there more things we are finding that can't be explain with new laws harder to discover. This is why a lot of our modern theories are relying more and more on unseen things which heavily relys on mathematics. Some of these theories are way out there.
So isn't it amazing science today looks for all these invisible and sometime not even prove to exist things (Dark matter , Dark energy) yet turn a blind eye when it come to God or intelligent design in nature. Even abiogenesis is called science as bad as it is.

 

[Smidlee]

Nor will it ever deny God credit for what God has done. What we make of science will depend on our theology. Science will not dictate what we are to believe about God. Except on one point: a god-of-the-gaps is not compatible with science. As a 19th century theologian put it:

"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. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.​

As a Christian, which option do you accept?

Yet we don't live in the 19th century , since then we have uncover alot of the known laws of physics yet some gaps are getting bigger with less laws to be discovered. Just because this saying was good in 19th century doesn't mean it is as good today. If there is no more laws of physics to be discovered then continuing to avoid God is grow harder with time and just claiming evolution did it won't do for an answer.

 

[gluadys]

Not so fast, I see a double standard here. Science today deals with a lot of stuff that can't be tested directly yet it still called science ; Ex. black holes, (even ape to man can't be proven directly) yet makes predictions what would happen at the event horizon and look for hints of gravity then make claims of black holes.

However, these things can be inferred from their effects, such as gravitational force, which make a measurable difference. Science does not depend only on direct observation. If it did, we could have no forensic science. It does, however, depend on testable predictions of observations which must occur if the hypothesis is correct. And which might not occur. For a scientific prediction must, in principle, be able to falsify the prediction.

It is not the lack of direct observation which excludes God from science. It is the impossibility of falsifying the hypothesis of God. No matter what sort of scientific test you do, you can always claim it worked because God made it work, and you can never be proved wrong. There is no way to run a test or make an observation that shows God is not involved in the outcome.

 

[gluadys]

Yet we don't live in the 19th century , since then we have uncover alot of the known laws of physics

And which of them exclude God?

Just because this saying was good in 19th century doesn't mean it is as good today.

Why not? What science of the 20th century found a way to deny God?

just claiming evolution did it won't do for an answer.

Please re-read post 43 which speaks to this.

 

[Critias]

Nor will it ever deny God credit for what God has done. What we make of science will depend on our theology. Science will not dictate what we are to believe about God. Except on one point: a god-of-the-gaps is not compatible with science. As a 19th century theologian put it:

"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. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.​

As a Christian, which option do you accept?

Do you think one has to deny giving credit to God to not give credit to God? I think all one has to do is to not give God the credit. They don't have to deny God the credit outright because in their silence they are already denying Him the credit.

It was an excellent point you made and one all should realize that science cannot say there is God so therefore it will not give God credit and to not give God credit is to deny God credit.

Let me make an example for the sake of argument. If one doesn't accept Jesus as their Savior, but doesn't deny Him either, will this position save them? Will gnostism save people? No.

As a Christian, I accept the option of giving God Glory. Science does not accept this option, nor does it deny it outright, but in their silence they have denied it.

 

[Critias]

Not so fast, I see a double standard here. Science today deals with a lot of stuff that can't be tested directly yet it still called science ; Ex. black holes, (even ape to man can't be proven directly) yet makes predictions what would happen at the event horizon and look for hints of gravity then make claims of black holes. The old agreement "God of the gaps" work well 200 years ago because the lack of our knowledge of natural laws but since then we have closed the knowledge gap of the natural world. Yet as we closing the gaps there more things we are finding that can't be explain with new laws harder to discover. This is why a lot of our modern theories are relying more and more on unseen things which heavily relys on mathematics. Some of these theories are way out there.
So isn't it amazing science today looks for all these invisible and sometime not even prove to exist things (Dark matter , Dark energy) yet turn a blind eye when it come to God or intelligent design in nature. Even abiogenesis is called science as bad as it is.

I agree and what is even more amazing is that people actually think you have to actively deny God to be against Him. That if you don't give Him credit, but don't deny Him credit that it is ok. The gnostic position is rather popular I think and thought to be alright with God. Odd that this should be accepted here.

 

[shernren]

I'm curious Critias, what are you referring to as the "gnostic position"? Are you referring to the agnostic position? Science is agnostic. Theology is not. That is why you don't need to be Christian to be good at science, but you need to be a good Christian to be good at Christian theology.

The scientist will tell you, for example, that Jesus died of respiratory crisis. Are they giving credit to God or denying credit from God? No. But are they right? Yes - from a scientific point of view. From a theological point of view, of course, the death of Jesus is so much more than just a few muscle groups giving up. But nothing of the theological point of view invalidates the scientific point of view.

 

[artybloke]

It was an excellent point you made and one all should realize that science cannot say there is God so therefore it will not give God credit and to not give God credit is to deny God credit.

So if I say, for instance, that I've replaced the washer on this tap, rather than, say, God replaced the washer through me, I'm denying God, am I? Because that's basically what you're saying. Science is not about metaphysics, it is not qualified to talk about metaphysics, it can't talk about metaphysics, because that is not what it is for. It is purely there to explain how the world works, not why it works.

 

[gluadys]

Do you think one has to deny giving credit to God to not give credit to God? I think all one has to do is to not give God the credit. They don't have to deny God the credit outright because in their silence they are already denying Him the credit.

Actually, if silence is to be interpreted at all, it is usually taken to mean consent, so that means one should either consider science silent or consider that science does give credit to God.

Remaining silent is not denial.

Let me make an example for the sake of argument. If one doesn't accept Jesus as their Savior, but doesn't deny Him either, will this position save them?

According to the apostle Paul, yes. (Rom. 2:14) According to traditional Christian theology, yes. God judges by the heart, and by whether one has followed the light one has, not by whether one is a Christian. Remember, according to the gospel of John, Christ is the Light that enlightens "every man" (John 1:4) not just those who have heard the gospel. To the extent one is true to the light that is in every soul, the path to salvation is open, since that light is Christ, whether one knows it as Christ or not. It is just as likely that those outside the church will be saved as that those within the church will not be.

 

[Critias]

Actually, if silence is to be interpreted at all, it is usually taken to mean consent, so that means one should either consider science silent or consider that science does give credit to God.

Remaining silent is not denial.



According to the apostle Paul, yes. (Rom. 2:14) According to traditional Christian theology, yes. God judges by the heart, and by whether one has followed the light one has, not by whether one is a Christian. Remember, according to the gospel of John, Christ is the Light that enlightens "every man" (John 1:4) not just those who have heard the gospel. To the extent one is true to the light that is in every soul, the path to salvation is open, since that light is Christ, whether one knows it as Christ or not. It is just as likely that those outside the church will be saved as that those within the church will not be.

I see, so people don't need to accept Jesus Christ in order to be saved?

 

[Critias]

I'm curious Critias, what are you referring to as the "gnostic position"? Are you referring to the agnostic position? Science is agnostic. Theology is not. That is why you don't need to be Christian to be good at science, but you need to be a good Christian to be good at Christian theology.

The scientist will tell you, for example, that Jesus died of respiratory crisis. Are they giving credit to God or denying credit from God? No. But are they right? Yes - from a scientific point of view. From a theological point of view, of course, the death of Jesus is so much more than just a few muscle groups giving up. But nothing of the theological point of view invalidates the scientific point of view.

There are people who are theologians that deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It doesnt' take a good Christian to be a theologian. You just need to be able to attain the degree.

I simply asked, if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your Savior will you be saved? Even if you didn't deny Him either.

Edit: I was wrong about what gluadys thought on Jesus.

 

[Critias]

So if I say, for instance, that I've replaced the washer on this tap, rather than, say, God replaced the washer through me, I'm denying God, am I? Because that's basically what you're saying. Science is not about metaphysics, it is not qualified to talk about metaphysics, it can't talk about metaphysics, because that is not what it is for. It is purely there to explain how the world works, not why it works.

Can a person be saved if they take no position on Jesus Christ, neither deny Him nor accept Him as their Savior? Will that stance save them?

Let me put this so it is clear to be understood. If Jesus says I am the way and the truth, no man comes to the Father but through Me, that is what Jesus meant. That no one will be saved unless they come to Jesus Christ.

When science says we cannot give God credit because we cannot prove God, then they are denying God credit.

Your example is to take it to the extreme, well done. My point was that gluadys made an excellent point saying science will never give God credit for what He has done. It seems you find this to be a good thing. That is rather odd coming from a Christian.

 

[gluadys]

I see, so people don't need to accept Jesus Christ in order to be saved?

Yes, but they don't need to do so publicly, or join a church or be visibly a Christian. They may even think themselves not a Christian until they meet Christ on the day of judgment and recognize him as the one they have been following all their lives.

No one anywhere is beyond the grace of God and God knows his own, even when we do not. As Mother Theresa once said, we don't know how God chooses to appear to another soul. So we cannot write off another person just because they don't measure up to our criteria.