Question for Christians who believe in Evolution

[lifepsyop]

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?

That's a fair question, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's be sure that what is called modern science is completely relegated to this naturalistic philosophy (as you yourself admit)

The implications of this is that all gathered data *must* be processed through a filter of naturalism and a naturalistic cosmogony (primordial origins) ... that is the entire basis of modern scientific institutions.

In other words, the mission of these institutions has always been to formulate a naturalistic (i.e. Evolutionary) model of the history of the earth. It's important to acknowledge this truth, because it a far different picture than the distorted but popular idea of these institutions being propelled to those naturalistic/evolutionary conclusions by the evidence. An Evolutionistic interpretation of reality was predetermined from the outset.

This is an admitted truth of modern science, yet it seems Evolutionists/Naturalists don't like lingering on it... I think it's because Evolutionists have been telling people for so long that their naturalistic view of origins is unimpeachable... yet the truth is that this view is ultimately a product of a metaphysical philosophy that cannot interpret reality in any other way.

It would be like YEC's feeling vindicated that they still believe in Young-Earth Creation even though they've been refining global flood models for centuries. That's very similar to modern "science" acting vindicated that they still uphold an Evolutionary history of the earth, even though the particulars of it have been endlessly refined and updated.

That may be very uncomfortable for evolutionists to admit, but it's essentially true (and even admitted by evolutionists themselves). The Metaphysical ideology at your foundation dominates how you interpret the evidence for it.

 

[lifepsyop]

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.

I appreciate the response... would I be right in assuming you are also agnostic about supernatural claims (at least non-salvation related ones) in the New Testament? Like Jesus casting demons out of people and sending them into pigs...?

 

[Brightmoon]

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)

one the shocking things that I found out in my first year in college was in an art history class. They found the clay paystubs of the people who worked on the pyramids . I had believed something that wasn’t true, that Jewish slaves built the pyramids.( I was given that impression from a Charlton Heston movie ) This is how fantasies get supplanted by evidence . Now if I was arrogant I’d hold on to the fantasy even though it’s wrong .

 

[pitabread]

That's a fair question, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

I'd like to see you answer it. I don't need another diatribe about methodological naturalism.

If you want to propose an alternative epistemological basis for gaining information about the world, what else could we use?

I don't think you have an answer for this.

 

[Strathos]

If they ever 'find the cities' then they are mistaken. We can be quite sure that anything they find is neither Sodam or Gomorrah because God left them as ashes. The simple answer is that man, once again, has it wrong.

Genesis 19:24
Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens.

Matthew 11:23-24
And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”

2 Peter 2:6-9
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds),read more.
then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment.

It's a hypothetical situation. Obviously I don't believe that the remains of an undamaged Sodom and Gomorrah as I described will ever be found, because such things don't exist.

 

[Speedwell]

That's a fair question, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's be sure that what is called modern science is completely relegated to this naturalistic philosophy (as you yourself admit)

The implications of this is that all gathered data *must* be processed through a filter of naturalism and a naturalistic cosmogony (primordial origins) ... that is the entire basis of modern scientific institutions.

In other words, the mission of these institutions has always been to formulate a naturalistic (i.e. Evolutionary) model of the history of the earth. It's important to acknowledge this truth, because it a far different picture than the distorted but popular idea of these institutions being propelled to those naturalistic/evolutionary conclusions by the evidence. An Evolutionistic interpretation of reality was predetermined from the outset.

This is an admitted truth of modern science, yet it seems Evolutionists/Naturalists don't like lingering on it... I think it's because Evolutionists have been telling people for so long that their naturalistic view of origins is unimpeachable... yet the truth is that this view is ultimately a product of a metaphysical philosophy that cannot interpret reality in any other way.

It would be like YEC's feeling vindicated that they still believe in Young-Earth Creation even though they've been refining global flood models for centuries. That's very similar to modern "science" acting vindicated that they still uphold an Evolutionary history of the earth, even though the particulars of it have been endlessly refined and updated.

That may be very uncomfortable for evolutionists to admit, but it's essentially true (and even admitted by evolutionists themselves). The Metaphysical ideology at your foundation dominates how you interpret the evidence for it.

Can you suggest a piece of evidence as an example of this duality of interpretation?

 

[Silmarien]

I appreciate the response... would I be right in assuming you are also agnostic about supernatural claims (at least non-salvation related ones) in the New Testament? Like Jesus casting demons out of people and sending them into pigs...?

Depends on what you mean by "agnostic." It doesn't make sense to me to say that God became man and yet was not actually a nexus point for miraculous events, so in that sense I would say that I'm not agnostic. That said, I would be surprised if there were no embellishment or outright fabrication in the New Testament, since that's just how storytelling works, so for any given miracle (aside from the major one), I would be somewhat agnostic. How much so would vary, but I think literally all of them are possible, all things considered.

I would say that I'm a methodological naturalist, but definitely not a metaphysical naturalist. Sometimes that leads to a bit of cognitive dissonance, but it's not unmanageable.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

That is interesting. Miracles are not much of my concern. Not that important to my faith. But I do belive they can happen, that is some previously unknown natural prices is activated. I dont think even miracles ar supernatural.

 

[lifepsyop]

I'd like to see you answer it. I don't need another diatribe about methodological naturalism.

Oh, how convenient... evolutionists constantly bullhorn that their naturalistic worldview is the correct way to interpret reality and then immediately deflect when someone actually wants to examine it. I wonder why that is.

 

[lifepsyop]

Can you suggest a piece of evidence as an example of this duality of interpretation?

The dinosaur soft-tissue was a good example I thought, if that is what your asking.

 

[lifepsyop]

Depends on what you mean by "agnostic." It doesn't make sense to me to say that God became man and yet was not actually a nexus point for miraculous events, so in that sense I would say that I'm not agnostic. That said, I would be surprised if there were no embellishment or outright fabrication in the New Testament, since that's just how storytelling works, so for any given miracle (aside from the major one), I would be somewhat agnostic. How much so would vary, but I think literally all of them are possible, all things considered.

I would say that I'm a methodological naturalist, but definitely not a metaphysical naturalist. Sometimes that leads to a bit of cognitive dissonance, but it's not unmanageable.

It's my guess that most Christians who subscribe to Evolution are also agnostic (at best) towards claims of supernatural events in the New Testament (which surely have little to do with the Evolutionary storyline regarding the history of the earth).

In my opinion it is because those Christians are not so much persuaded by the arguments for Evolution as they are aligned with an overall naturalistic view of reality.

 

[Brightmoon]

The dinosaur soft-tissue was a good example I thought, if that is what your asking.

that’s a seriously poor example as creationists simply fabricated a story over information that they didn’t bother to check . And when corrected many many times, still repeated the nonsense again without bother to check to see if their information was correct.

the soft tissue was mineralized after being preserved ( I guess you could say pickled) with a natural iron ion technique . Schweitzer demineralized the bone tissue and found preserved cartilage and blood vessels along with the remains of blood heme molecules. The dinosaur tissue proteins were very close , almost identical to ostrich . More evidence that birds are dinosaurs

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

As an evolutionist myself, the short answer in my perspective would be that it's not that I think the Old Testament narratives are mythical, but rather than I think there are several philosophical issues that imply that ALL human writing from the past, of whatever kind, is "representational" in nature to various degrees and can't offer us a fully embodied description or glimpse of human experience in the past, even if the events accounted for actually happened.

So, it's not only that I think evolution is correct. It's also that my understanding of the Philosophy of History is such that I don't think even the biblical accounts tell us things "as it happened."

But do I think the parting of the Red Sea happened? I think it's plausible. Do I think Jesus bodily rose from the dead? Yes, I think it's likely. Can I "prove" any of this? No, because that's not how written history or historical research works.

 

[pitabread]

n'mind

 

[pitabread]

Oh, how convenient... evolutionists constantly bullhorn that their naturalistic worldview is the correct way to interpret reality and then immediately deflect when someone actually wants to examine it. I wonder why that is.

I'm asking what your alternative is.

If we're not going to use science (via methodological naturalism) as an epistemological basis for gathering information about our world, then what *are* we supposed to use?

You can scream about methodological naturalism until you are blue in the face, but if you don't have an alternative then what is the point? All your ranting is moot.

 

[lifepsyop]

that’s a seriously poor example as creationists simply fabricated a story over information that they didn’t bother to check . And when corrected many many times, still repeated the nonsense again without bother to check to see if their information was correct.

the soft tissue was mineralized after being preserved ( I guess you could say pickled) with a natural iron ion technique . Schweitzer demineralized the bone tissue and found preserved cartilage and blood vessels along with the remains of blood heme molecules. The dinosaur tissue proteins were very close , almost identical to ostrich . More evidence that birds are dinosaurs

I'm aware of how evolutionists have chosen to try and interpret the data... (after initially insisting it couldn't exist and that YEC's are stupid for even suggesting it, bu let's forget that part)

So are we going to sit here and pretend there was ever going to be any conclusion other than one that accorded with the Evolutionary worldview? ..... C'mon... let's be real. We all know the answer to that, we're just supposed to pretend it isn't the case. We're supposed to pretend Evolutionists are actually testing their worldview every day... but that's a myth... the fundamental worldview is never up for debate, and never was. Because it is a slave to 'natural causation' as the explanation of all phenomena.

 

[Speedwell]

It's my guess that most Christians who subscribe to Evolution are also agnostic (at best) towards claims of supernatural events in the New Testament (which surely have little to do with the Evolutionary storyline regarding the history of the earth).

It would have even less to do with the evolutionary story of life on Earth the the OT example you used earlier. The NT is just short of 2000 years old--again, a drop in the bucket compared to evolutionary history.

In my opinion it is because those Christians are not so much persuaded by the arguments for Evolution as they are aligned with an overall naturalistic view of reality.

And what, exactly, is wrong with a naturalistic world view?

 

[George95]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been moved from Creation & Evolution to Creation & Theistic Evolution.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Silmarien]

It's my guess that most Christians who subscribe to Evolution are also agnostic (at best) towards claims of supernatural events in the New Testament (which surely have little to do with the Evolutionary storyline regarding the history of the earth).

In my opinion it is because those Christians are not so much persuaded by the arguments for Evolution as they are aligned with an overall naturalistic view of reality.

I think it's true that evolutionary theory lends itself to a more deistic picture, so those who interpret it in such a way are likely to have more problems with the possibility of miracles because they have trouble conceptualizing a God who intervenes in history. (I don't think this is a necessary consequence of belief in evolution, and I would actually consider it a theological error, but I suspect that it's fairly common.)

So I think that you've hit upon something that does happen, but that you have it backwards. Belief in evolution can lead to a deistic (or ultimately naturalistic) view of reality, which then can effect how someone reads the rest of the Bible, but it doesn't necessarily spring from a previous commitment to naturalism.

Of course, some people are agnostic on the miracles because of concerns in historical scholarship rather than because of evolutionary theory. These two things don't have to be linked at all.

 

[Palmfever]

The miracles were real. If God through Christ created the universe then why would it be difficult for Him to control nature, to supersede physics at certain times. When Christ stated that he could call angels to defend Him, was he lying?

Mat, 26:53 "Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

What do we do with miracles? I choose to believe. Life is a vapor and while are learning, we can’t presume to know all the details of the physical universe.

Colossians, 1:16 For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Sometimes when dealing with brutes and idiots, it can be easy to believe some to be descendants of apes. Perhaps. The Sons of God however, being made in Gods image, are not.

Creation may be considerably older than 6500 years. We’ve tossed that around on another thread.
The bible story is a supernatural story. Our lack of faith to perform miracles is our failure, not a misrepresentation in scripture. This little temporal home of ours, earth, is amazing. God does good work.

I’m not opposed to science, I in fact appreciate the discoveries men have made in God’s creation. They are discoveries of Gods methods and materials, His natural world, not a substitute. Not an alternate truth.

“He who sits at the bottom of a well to observe the sky, does not see very much.”

I find it incongruous that some will proclaim faith in an omnipotent God, then keep Him shackled on the mantle of human philosophy and conjecture.