Question for Christians who believe in Evolution

[Speedwell]

Okay, what about the cases where consensus history/archeology claims to have disproved a Biblical account. Based on their chosen model of Egyptian chronology, practically the entire Book of Exodus is claimed to be a myth... Is that your view as well? I'm still not clear on if you're simply going with consensus opinion of the academic institutions.

Claimed to be a myth? Or a completely baseless work of fiction? Or just didn't happen exactly as described in the Bible? Which is it? My impression is that despite the complete absence of archaeological evidence, a majority of scholars are of the opinion that the Exodus has some ultimate historicty.

 

[Speedwell]

Struck a nerve, did I?

And yes, that is exactly what happened. Evolutionists collectively laughed at the suggestion that original protein material could have been preserved in dinosaur remains (it had to be outside contamination).... then they realized it could no longer be denied... then they upended their entire understanding of organic decay rates... all to preserve a naturalistic view of reality...

Again, "Science" has no choice but to do this. It cannot accept evidence that contradicts an evolutionary interpretation of the history of the earth. That is the metaphysical philosophy the institution is founded upon.

No, presented a falsehood. Don't press it too hard or it will become a lie.

1. Your description of the scientific discourse surrounding the discovery of the fossil is highly imaginative.
2. Even so, the relatively late survival of dinosaurs would not pose a crucial difficulty for the theory of evolution.
3. The theory of evolution is not metaphysical naturalism.

 

[ZNP]

This is actually a good example of a "naturalizing" of the Biblical accounts... appealing to naturalistic causes and mechanisms to explain every aspect of the Genesis flood account.

So instead of God leading all the animal types to Noah through his supernatural guidance (as is suggested in Genesis 6:20) ... instead it must have been a completely naturalized sequence of events (e.g. Noah collecting domesticated animals in a fashion that would accord with the natural capabilities of men )

What is not "naturalized" is that God spoke to Noah before the event happened, He told Noah what to do, He gave Noah a design for this boat, and He waited until Noah had completed the work.

 

[ZNP]

Claimed to be a myth? Or a completely baseless work of fiction? Or just didn't happen exactly as described in the Bible? Which is it? My impression is that despite the complete absence of archaeological evidence, a majority of scholars are of the opinion that the Exodus has some ultimate historicty.

There is not a "complete absence of archaeological evidence". See "The Exodus Decoded" for a movie that presents archaeological evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is actually a good example of a "naturalizing" of the Biblical accounts... appealing to naturalistic causes and mechanisms to explain every aspect of the Genesis flood account.

So instead of God leading all the animal types to Noah through his supernatural guidance (as is suggested in Genesis 6:20) ... instead it must have been a completely naturalized sequence of events (e.g. Noah collecting domesticated animals in a fashion that would accord with the natural capabilities of men )

If inconsistencies between the biblical story and what is possible naturally can be removed by the judicious application of supernatural influence, then there's little to argue about - ultimately, with supernatural assistance, the whole thing could happen just as written, with all traces being subsequently removed by supernatural means ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ironically, the arguments are generally with biblical literalists trying to assert the scientific credibility of the story.

 

[Speedwell]

There is not a "complete absence of archaeological evidence". See "The Exodus Decoded" for a movie that presents archaeological evidence.

Having seen the movie and read critiques of it by scientists and scholars (Christian scientists and scholars included) I stand by my statement.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Struck a nerve, did I?

And yes, that is exactly what happened. Evolutionists collectively laughed at the suggestion that original protein material could have been preserved in dinosaur remains (it had to be outside contamination).... then they realized it could no longer be denied... then they upended their entire understanding of organic decay rates... all to preserve a naturalistic view of reality...

Again, "Science" has no choice but to do this. It cannot accept evidence that contradicts an evolutionary interpretation of the history of the earth. That is the metaphysical philosophy the institution is founded upon.

Science works by updating and refining its models based on new data. Rarely, this means overturning an existing paradigm, but more often it means updating or refining the existing one.

If you find a rock that's lighter than you previously thought possible, you look for an explanation of how a rock could be so light - you don't throw out the well-established theory of gravity.

The timescale of dinosaur remains is well established by multiple lines of evidence; the limits of soft tissue preservation were not well established - we hadn't found ancient soft tissue and it didn't seem likely. So it was surprising to find ancient soft tissue, hence the initial scepticism, but further research confirmed and explained it. Even Biologos agrees.

Science thrives on the unusual and the unexpected - as Isaac Asimov once said, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!) but “That’s funny …”"

 

[pitabread]

Because it goes against every word of scripture.
perhaps evolution makes you feel somehow more open and loving but that isn't how it affects a lot of people.
How do you think the Nazi's got their 'master race ideas'? They thought they were more evolved than everybody else.

FYI, but if you're going to play the evolution = eugenics cards, then surely you must accept that lots of people have used religion (including Christianity) to justify some pretty horrendous acts.

Glass houses and all that...

 

[lifepsyop]

Claimed to be a myth? Or a completely baseless work of fiction? Or just didn't happen exactly as described in the Bible? Which is it? My impression is that despite the complete absence of archaeological evidence, a majority of scholars are of the opinion that the Exodus has some ultimate historicty.

I thought I was being pretty clear.... the "scientific" position has to be that any claims of supernatural activity upon the earth (e.g. parting of the Red Sea, as in Israelites walking between suspended walls of water ) did not actually happen. Sure, the institutions have no problem with small kernels of historicity in the Bible, as long as they are ultimately accommodated and bow down to a naturalistic metaphysical view of history that the sciences are bound to.

(btw, I find your claim of a lack of archaeological evidence for the Exodus laughable, but I'd rather not get sidetracked with a discussion on the errors of conventional Egyptian chronology)

 

[Speedwell]

I thought I was being pretty clear.... the "scientific" position has to be that any claims of supernatural activity upon the earth (e.g. parting of the Red Sea, as in Israelites walking between suspended walls of water ) did not actually happen. Sure, the institutions have no problem with small kernels of historicity in the Bible, as long as they are ultimately accommodated and bow down to a naturalistic metaphysical view of history that the sciences are bound to.

Now you are moving on from mere falsehood to outright lie. Science does not need to take metaphysical naturalist position to ignore that for which there is no real evidence--and it has no need to deny it, either.

(btw, I find your claim of a lack of archaeological evidence for the Exodus laughable, but I'd rather not get sidetracked with a discussion on the errors of conventional Egyptian chronology)

If it has anything to do with that goofy Exodus Decoded movie, or quacks like Ron Wyatt you'd be wasting your time, anyway.

 

[lifepsyop]

Science works by updating and refining its models based on new data. Rarely, this means overturning an existing paradigm, but more often it means updating or refining the existing one.

Only if that paradigm does not threaten a fundamental naturalistic worldview of history. In "Science", overturning mini-paradigms is fine, just not THE metaphysical paradigm that the institutions were founded upon.

It's similar to the way that Young-Earth Creationists are very open to all sorts of competing hypotheses and models of the particulars of the global flood described in Genesis, but are completely cut off from any suggestion that a global flood did not happen. They are philosophically closed off from questioning that ultimate cosmogonic paradigm in the same way "science" is closed off from considering a paradigm where 'natural process' is not the ultimate cause.

Each school of thought is open to refinement and "updates" but they are not built to accommodate fundamental rejections of the metaphysics they are built upon.

What I'm saying isn't even controversial. Most scientists will freely admit that they are limited to an interpretive filter of "methodological naturalism"...

The timescale of dinosaur remains is well established by multiple lines of evidence; the limits of soft tissue preservation were not well established - we hadn't found ancient soft tissue and it didn't seem likely. So it was surprising to find ancient soft tissue, hence the initial scepticism, but further research confirmed and explained it.

So... are we still pretending that the supposed age of the dinosaurs was ever up for "scientific" debate? I mean.. you're essentially in agreement with me that those ages are *off-limits* to scientific inquiry... of course you believe that it is only off-limits because of a prior pattern of evidence... and yet this just brings us back to the original point... only interpretations that support long evolutionary ages for dinosaurs was ever considered in the first place. That is how the age of dinosaurs became "well-established" as you characterize it.

Even Biologos agrees.

Science thrives on the unusual and the unexpected - as Isaac Asimov once said, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!) but “That’s funny …”"

And? BioLogos is a good example of Theistic Evolutionists wanting to thrust reality through a lens of naturalism.

 

[pitabread]

What I'm saying isn't even controversial. Most scientists will freely admit that they are limited to an interpretive filter of "methodological naturalism"...

Sure. But how else is science supposed to function?

In fact, as an epistemological basis for gaining information about the world, what else could we use?

 

[Tinker Grey]

This idea that perhaps science should attempt to allow for the supernatural is fascinating. How would that work?

I find an acorn in my front yard. I have no oak trees on or near my property. Let's say the nearest oak tree is 50 miles away. Now suppose I'm unusually inquisitive today and bother to ponder how an acorn got there. Should I allow that a god put it there? An angel? A demon? A djinn? And how would I conclude which if any were true? But, I could imagine a kid throwing an acorn out of its car window as it drove past. I can imagine that the earth-moving equipment that has been a plague on my otherwise bucolic life had inadvertently transported the nascent oak tree from a previous work-site.

Which of the above is more likely? How should a scientist even consider djinn?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What I'm saying isn't even controversial. Most scientists will freely admit that they are limited to an interpretive filter of "methodological naturalism"...

Science attempts to find testable explanations for our observations of the world. That implies methodological naturalism - how else do you suggest observations can be made and hypotheses tested?

So... are we still pretending that the supposed age of the dinosaurs was ever up for "scientific" debate? I mean.. you're essentially in agreement with me that those ages are *off-limits* to scientific inquiry... of course you believe that it is only off-limits because of a prior pattern of evidence... and yet this just brings us back to the original point... only interpretations that support long evolutionary ages for dinosaurs was ever considered in the first place. That is how the age of dinosaurs became "well-established" as you characterize it.

No; nothing observable is 'off-limits' to scientific inquiry.

The age of dinosaur fossils (and the Earth itself) was originally thought to be much lower than we know today - because we lacked the means to date them with any accuracy - there has been plenty of debate about their age. The debate pretty much ended when the discovery of radiometric dating and the technique of sedimentary bracketing pushed the dates way back. Later techniques confirmed the radiometric dating results. We now have a far more detailed recent history of the Earth, its geology and tectonics, and where the dinosaurs fit in that history.

So the prior pattern of evidence from multiple lines of evidence has led to the current dating. The unexpected discovery of soft tissue doesn't challenge that evidence, it changes what we know about the fossilisation of soft tissue.

To challenge the dating evidence would require demonstrating that fundamental physics and most of Earth science was somehow mistaken and that there was an equally explanatory, testable, predictive, fruitful, coherent, consistent, and parsimonious alternative physics and Earth science that gave identical results for all experiments except for the dating.

That is wishful thinking at the pure fantasy level.

E.T.A. The thread has been moved, so I'm no longer permitted to post.

 

[Silmarien]

In considering the accounts of miracles in the Old Testament (e.g. the Exodus Red Sea parting, the supernatural destruction of Jericho, Samson's supernatural strength, Elijah summoning fire down on God's enemies, etc. )

Do you believe these are generally all mythologized stories? As in, the stories are there to convey a spiritual message, but the actual supernatural events did not actually happen?

I am curious because most of these events (after you get through the first few books of Genesis) have little to do with the basic Evolutionary story of the development of life on earth, and yet I wonder if those Christians who believe in Evolution, also tend to have a problem accepting any of the major accounts of supernatural events in the Old Testament as real, actual events?

I think there's a shift towards the end of Genesis or beginning of Exodus between genuine mythology and Heroic literature, and then another shift at about where Solomon shows up between Heroic literature and mythologized history. I would say that whatever is mythology probably has no basis in history, whatever is Heroic literature likely has some basis in history, and whatever is mythologized history at the very least has historical events as its framework.

Do I believe that the supernatural events are real, actual events? Generally speaking, I'm agnostic about that. I doubt any of them occurred exactly as recounted, because historical accounts don't work like that, but that doesn't necessarily mean that miracles didn't happen. I approach them the same way I would any of the miracle claims in Antiquity, which is to say that I reject the assumption of naturalism and am pretty comfortable with the possibility that the ancient world might have been filled with deities and magic before Christianity. There's no way to know, and it's irrelevant in the present, so it's not something I care to focus on.

 

[Speedwell]

Sure. But how else is science supposed to function?

In fact, as an epistemological basis for gaining information about the world, what else could we use?

I think we will discover that we are expected to regard Scripture as scientific evidence.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I think we will discover that we are expected to regard Scripture as scientific evidence.

Why? Even Jesus modeled the wide use of language and images, mastering the art of parables, stories.

 

[Speedwell]

Why? Even Jesus modeled the wide use of language and images, mastering the art of parables, stories.

The fundamentalist Protestant God is not a story teller. He only deals in facts.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The fundamentalist Protestant God is not a story teller. He only deals in facts.

And yet I don't think many fundamentalist protestants pluck their eyes out?

 

[Brightmoon]

You are sorry that we don't feel that our dogs and plants are related to us? We don't have to feel we are related to our pets to love them.

"I’ll never understand the sick dread creationists feel about evolution"
Because it goes against every word of scripture.
perhaps evolution makes you feel somehow more open and loving but that isn't how it affects a lot of people.
How do you think the Nazi's got their 'master race ideas'? They thought they were more evolved than everybody else.
"Nazi racial theorists did indeed embrace human and racial evolution. They not only taught that humans had evolved from primates, but they believed the Aryan or Nordic race had evolved to a higher level"
https://www.csustan.edu/sites/defau.../Weikart/Darwinism-in-Nazi-Racial-Thought.pdf

We have a great connection to all of what is around us because we are fearfully and wonderfully made and we view God as the creator. We love God so by extension of that we love creation. We also believe all people are related and equal because we all came from Adam and Eve. You do not need belief in evolution to have a love for nature.

. The nazis and so called racial eugenicists were wrong about human evolution. The point being that they were wrong . We know better so why are you bringing it up now . That’s called beating a dead horse.
Theres is a lot of evidence for common descent and none for the biblical version of creation . When creationists come up with evidence for their claims then I’ll re examine this issue . I’m not holding my breath as so far they’ve only managed to lie, use incorrect techniques and misinform.