Saving Darwin

[Mallon]

God caused the big bang supernaturally.

When?

God caused life to spring forth from the earth supernaturally.

Do you believe He created a first life form and all other life evolved from it? Or do you believe in "created kinds"?

I believe the earth is older than 10,000 years, perhaps even 2 billion years old.

That sounds pretty lukewarm to me. Better pick a date and stick to it!

I classify myself as an OEC, and that physical death existed before the fall of Adam.

Interesting. You appear to have an amalgam of beliefs that do not fit comfortably in any camp I've heard of. You appear, on the surface, to accept evolution, yet you also reject the old age of the earth posited by most other OECs (who agree 4.6 billion years). I'd be curious to know how you square your biological and geological sciences together, since they would appear to be in conflict.
So now I guess we have Middle-Aged Earth Creationism.

 

[Van]

Mallon, you do not get it. Face it. You used an undefined term. I defined its meaning using a published source. You said that is not what it means, but provided a defintion which does not mesh with the published source. QED Arguments from special knowledge are without merit.

Next why do you keep redefining deistic processes as godless. That is simply yet another false assertion in an avalache of false assertions. Lets stick to terms defined in the dictionary shall we?

 

[Van]

Better pick a date and stick with it. Ok, the most probable date is 1.2 billion years.

When did God cause the big bang. I do not know but accepting a date around 14 billion years ago seems a sound hypothesis.

No, I do not believe all life evolved from a single life form. I believe God caused various life forms to spring from the earth.

No, we have OEC. And my views do contain unresolved conflicts with the Bible, i.e. the first Adam being created about 6000 years ago yet cave paintings suggest men able to handle abstract thought existed well before 6000 years ago. I do not accept John Stott's solution.

This is what I find strange. Folks accept the earth is 4.6 billion years old, even though evidence indicates it is less than 2 billion years old. They simply dismiss counter-evidence and ridicule those who say the king has no garments.

Lets take coal, with a C14 date of 60,000 years. They dismiss it and say the date comes from radiogenic processes. But there is not enough Nitrogen present to create the C14. Or moon regression where they say all the land was massed together when evidence for supercontinent formation and break-up abounds in the literature.

 

[Mallon]

Whatever you say, Van...

 

[shernren]

Mallon, you do not get it. Face it.

Actually, it's about time someone called your bluff. What are your educational qualifications and how long have you been working theologically in the area of origins? Because face it, you're the one who comes across as not knowing what you're talking about, and by Warfield's criterion in my signature you clearly lack philosophical acumen.

You used an undefined term. I defined its meaning using a published source. You said that is not what it means, but provided a defintion which does not mesh with the published source. QED Arguments from special knowledge are without merit.

Firstly, it is disingenuous for you to cite a meaning without telling us where you got it from. A quick google reveals the source to be Denis Lamoureux, for example in this article: http://ncseweb.org/rncse/24/3-4/review-faith-form-time

Concordism (or better, scientific concordism), which is foundational to creationist principles of biblical interpretation, is the belief that there exists an accord between science and Scripture. ... Wise continues in this hermeneutical tradition as clearly reflected in the subtitle of his book: "What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms."​

(emphasis added) In other words (and this is the same published source, not some "special knowledge without merit") scientific concordism teaches that science accords with Scripture in such a way that some of the things that the Bible teaches are things meant to be confirmed by, or in some cases even to overturn, a popular understanding of science.

That is miles away from what TEs believe and that's also what Lamoureux personally does not believe as he says later on:

Today, scientific concordism is rejected by Old Testament scholars within the evangelical academy. It is a grassroots hermeneutic. I suspect that if I had not studied Genesis 1–11, I would still be clinging tenaciously to a view of origins similar to Kurt Wise's. Thankfully, I studied the words of God before examining His works. Being unhampered by scientific concordism, I am now able to see and enjoy the overwhelming scientific evidence for biological evolution, which for me is the Creator's method for creating life.​

(emphasis added) To ascribe to Lamoureux a view which he specifically and unequivocally denies holding is a mistake at best and slander at worst.

Next why do you keep redefining deistic processes as godless. That is simply yet another false assertion in an avalache of false assertions. Lets stick to terms defined in the dictionary shall we?

Any deistic conception certainly does not involve the God of the Bible.

 

[shernren]

And it's funny that you mentioned deism:

God, the Creator of the Universe, the first cause, created the Universe. He, or She, or It existed before the Universe was created. I believe that force is eternal, without beginning. You can say it had a beginning, but without support. What is scientific fact is that before time, a force existed and that force caused the big bang to bang. So lets return to life could not come about by natural forces as we understand natural forces today. This is widely accepted. Not that Yahweh created life, but that some organizing force unknown to science most probably created life, because the design is too complex for it to happen in some warm swamp hit by lightning.

Granted, your comments are somewhat justifiable within the context (that an atheist was asking about proof for God), but they are still extremely disturbing because they seem to follow right down the trajectory that historically has led to deism again and again.

It starts when well-meaning apologists like you notice that, even if they can make design arguments stick on nature, they can't actually prove all that much about God from design. Sure we might get to say that God is powerful. We might even (depending on our knowledge of design criteria) say He is intelligent. Not much else. We certainly can't figure out that His name is Yahweh, that He ever had anything to do with any peoples on Earth, that He was incarnated, let alone that He would die for sin or even what sin is.

The next step takes anywhere from half a generation to a generation to occur, but people gradually notice two things about science and about the Bible:

- The Bible is messy and detailed: it's got all these stories and ideas and authors, some of whom don't fit together neatly, all of which require severe, painstaking, and inspired analysis. By contrast science is clean and sparse: everything gets expressed as just the repetition of a few simple formulae, at least in principle.
- The Bible is moral: the God of the Bible says very clearly (and inconveniently) what He likes and doesn't like. By constrast science is amoral: after all, there's no natural law against stealing, cheating or murdering (indeed one has to take physical law into account to be a successful criminal).

So what then? They decide that gee, the Bible doesn't really have what it takes to reveal God. Science is the next step up and the god science reveals looks an awful lot prettier than Yahweh. Hence you get the deism of post-Paley design arguments. In fact, if God is perfect and made the world scientifically perfect then He never has to intervene in it! See where your rhetoric gets us? If we think of God as a watchmaker and miracles as His occasional tinkering with creation, then God must either be aloof or incompetent.

And that's why concordism is so dangerous: "what the Bible teaches and science confirms" all too quickly becomes "what science confirms the Bible never got around to teaching".

 

[Van]

Actually, it's about time someone called your bluff. What are your educational qualifications and how long have you been working theologically in the area of origins? Because face it, you're the one who comes across as not knowing what you're talking about, and by Warfield's criterion in my signature you clearly lack philosophical acumen.

Note the lake of examples. Folks vague disparagement are the stock and trade of empty arguments, attacking the opponents qualifications rather than the position presented.

Please use the dictionary defintion of deism, where God is the passive sustainer and acts through naturalistic processes.

Next, Shernren, please stop recycling the refuted arguments of Mallon? We are not comparing YEC views of "scientific concordism" but OEC views of "scientific cordordism." You again seem to have missed the issue.

The special knowledge referred to the phone calls. Duh

I made no statement as to what the author of the defition I posted believes. I used the defintion as written. Now you say that is not what he meant. Fine. But what you claim he meant does not equate with OEC as claimed by Mallon. Got it yet?

There is no need to "prove" (your word) God exists, but only to "prove" nature suggests God exists. We can turn to special revelation to learn more about his invisible attributes.

You seem to confuse science with history. I am all for present day science. Write a paper that shows the moon-earth system has been in existence for less than 2 billion years and I am all over it.

But to write a brief designed to support an argument using the answer and working backwards to find tidal resistence is not science.

Next you postulate that some unknown person, the figment of your imagination, decides that the Bible is inadequate to reveal God. LOL

Does the bible say God made the universe perfect so that He never needs to intervene? Nope.

OEC is not dangerous, and Mallon equates scientific concordism with OEC. See the problem yet, Shernren?

 

[Van]

Folks, lets address the assertion that I am running a bluff. What bluff? Have I claimed to be a scientist? Nope, but I did claim I stayed at a holiday inn. Have I claimed to have run the model of the moon-earth relationship? Nope, I claimed to have read some of the published articles available on the internet. So what is Shernren referring to? He is insinuating that I think I know more about orgins than he does. But since I make no claim about my cognative ability, other than I can read and reason, it seems an assertion calculated to disparage me. But judge for yourself folks.

 

[Van]

Hi Shernren, I want to thank you again for helping clarify the dicussion.

And that's why concordism is so dangerous: "what the Bible teaches and science confirms" all too quickly becomes "what science confirms the Bible never got around to teaching".

Here is what I take away from your assertion. "What the Bible teaches and science confirms" is scientific concordism and "what science confirms the Bible never got around to teaching" is accommodationism. Do I have it right?

 

[Assyrian]

Please use the dictionary defintion of deism, where God is the passive sustainer and acts through naturalistic processes.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/deism

Compact Oxford English Dictionary

deism

/deeiz’m, day-/

• noun belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.Compare with THEISM.

— DERIVATIVES deist noun deistic adjective

 

[Mallon]

That's the same definition I get, Assyrian. Here's another:

"The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deism)

Van accuses us not not using the dictionary meaning of "deism" when, in fact, it appears the shoe is on the opposite foot. Deism implies an entirely hands-off god, active only in the initial 'winding up' of the universe, not one who is a "passive sustainer and acts through naturalistic processes".

I'm done arguing with Van at this point, though. It's fruitless.

 

[shernren]

Note the lake of examples.

(emphasis added) What a fitting typo.

Folks, lets address the assertion that I am running a bluff. What bluff? Have I claimed to be a scientist? Nope, but I did claim I stayed at a holiday inn. Have I claimed to have run the model of the moon-earth relationship? Nope, I claimed to have read some of the published articles available on the internet. So what is Shernren referring to? He is insinuating that I think I know more about origins than he does. But since I make no claim about my cognitive ability, other than I can read and reason, it seems an assertion calculated to disparage me. But judge for yourself folks.

Folks vague disparagement are the stock and trade of empty arguments, attacking the opponents qualifications rather than the position presented.

You seem to confuse science with history. I am all for present day science. Write a paper that shows the moon-earth system has been in existence for less than 2 billion years and I am all over it.

But to write a brief designed to support an argument using the answer and working backwards to find tidal resistence is not science.

(emphases added)

The other day I had a problem with my car: the engine was making funny noises. I went over to a friend and asked him what was wrong. He said, "Well, your engine hasn't hit its sweet spot. You need to pour two kilograms of honey into the fuel tank."

I did so and the car immediately emitted copious amounts of smoke. Deep down I knew it would never start up again. I turned to my friend and angrily shouted: "What kind of a mechanic are you?"

"Did I say I was a mechanic?" was all he said in response.

Many people may offer you advice about your car but you should listen first and foremost to a mechanic, someone who has spent lots of time and energy studying how cars work.
Many people may offer you advice about your health but you should listen first and foremost to a doctor, someone who has spent lots of time and energy studying how the human body works.
Many people may offer you advice about a legal case but you should listen first and foremost to a lawyer, someone who has spent lots of time and energy studying how the legal system works.
And many people may offer you advice about science and technology but you should listen first and foremost to a scientist, someone who has spent lots of time and energy studying how science works.

If you don't know anything about science what qualifies you to say when something is science and something isn't?
If you haven't run mathematical models of the Earth-Moon system, how on earth (hehe) would you know which of my assumptions are validly based on data and which of them (i.e. none) have been put in to ensure that an old age result comes out?
And if you know less about origins than I do, what could qualify you to tell me that I'm wrong? (For knowing I was wrong, where I did not know it, would qualify as knowing more about origins than I do.)

There are plenty of ugly words and stories out there that describe people who say things they know they can't back up. But I don't think I have to resort to them, do I?

Please use the dictionary defintion of deism, where God is the passive sustainer and acts through naturalistic processes.

There is no need to "prove" (your word) God exists, but only to "prove" nature suggests God exists. We can turn to special revelation to learn more about his invisible attributes.

Does the bible say God made the universe perfect so that He never needs to intervene? Nope.

No indeed. However the issue is not whether or not miracles occur, it is the nature of God's presence whether in naturalistic or miraculous processes. We believe that God is simply Sustainer in both miraculous and naturalistic processes. That God is somehow "passive" in the naturalistic, and "active" in the miraculous, is a step away from deism and concedes practically all of nature to the hands of the atheists.

Next you postulate that some unknown person, the figment of your imagination, decides that the Bible is inadequate to reveal God. LOL

That's right folks, John Adams is an unknown person, a figment of my imagination:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles."[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]“When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.”[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif]
[/FONT][/SIZE]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"This revelation has made it certain that two and one makes three, and that one is not three nor can three be one. We can never be so certain of any prophecy, or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle, as we are from the revelation of nature, i.e., Nature's God, that two and two are equal to four. Miracles or prophecies might frighten us out of our wits; might scare us to death; might induce us to lie, to say that we believe that two and two make five. But we should not believe it. We should know the contrary."[/SIZE][/FONT]​

And John Locke:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]“The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions."[/SIZE][/FONT]​

And Thomas Paine:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"Science is the true theology."[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon."[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][/FONT][/SIZE]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"The creation is the Bible of the Deist. He there reads, in the handwriting of the Creator himself, the certainty of His existence and the immutability of His power, and all other Bibles and Testaments are to him forgeries."[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"The Creation speaketh a universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God."[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"It is only in the CREATION that all the ideas and concepts of the word of God can come together. The Creation speaks a universal language that does not depend on any human speech or language. It is an eternal 'original copy' that all men can read. It cannot be faked or counterfeited. It cannot be lost or changed. It cannot be kept secret. It does not depend on man deciding whether to publish it or not. It publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all the nations, and all the worlds. This natural word of God reveals to us all that man needs to know of God."[/SIZE][/FONT]​

http://moderndeism.com/html/great_quotes.html

No wonder your nation is in such decline, some of your founding fathers never even existed!

Next, Shernren, please stop recycling the refuted arguments of Mallon? We are not comparing YEC views of "scientific concordism" but OEC views of "scientific cordordism." You again seem to have missed the issue.

The special knowledge referred to the phone calls. Duh

I made no statement as to what the author of the definition I posted believes. I used the definition as written. Now you say that is not what he meant. Fine. But what you claim he meant does not equate with OEC as claimed by Mallon. Got it yet?

OEC is not dangerous, and Mallon equates scientific concordism with OEC. See the problem yet, Shernren?

I see the problem: you don't like the fact that (as far as you can see) we don't like your position (whatever we can ascertain of it), and since you haven't the foggiest notion how to prop up your beliefs with either scientific evidence (since you, by your own admission, are not a scientist) or theology relating to origins (since you, by your own admission, know less about origins than we do), you choose to attack our disdain by trotting out obscurantist arguments about definitions and then loudly proclaiming victory repeatedly against people who know far better than to simply stoop to your level of pointless detail.

We could talk about concordism. But over and over again you have shown that you use questions and the answers people give to them not as ploughshares to till the land for knowledge, but as swords with which to attack those who would try to answer you.

Simply pointless, Van, and I doubt you'll make much sense of even this answer.

Hi Shernren, I want to thank you again for helping clarify the dicussion.

Here is what I take away from your assertion. "What the Bible teaches and science confirms" is scientific concordism and "what science confirms the Bible never got around to teaching" is accommodationism. Do I have it right?

Cute, but wrong. Come back when you're actually interested in what other people really believe instead of simply telling them how wrong they are for disagreeing with you.

 

[IndyPirate]

Whoa! This thread kinda blew up since the last time I was here. Sorry that I did not answer your question earlier Van. I wasn't completely sure how to answer them at the time. I'm new to the origins debate and there are obviously more knowledgable people here that are more than capable of answering your questions.

As for why I went from OEC to TE, it was because of the issue of Special Creation vs. Common Descent. The genetic evidence in favor of common descent is very strong. The only way to deny it is by making God out to be a trickster and the Bible shows that He would not lie to us by planting evidence.

 

[Van]

Thanks for agreeing with me Assyrian, deism does not mean godlessness. It is the passive sustainer view, where God set processes in motion in the beginning and allows them to run their course without intervention. So the "deistic view" is evolution occurred via naturalistic processes, example "a" and the "active sustainer" view where God intervenes and alters the course of His naturalistic processes, is the example "b" view.

Now that was not so hard was it?

 

[Van]

Good Mallon, I am glad you are done. Deism does not equate with godlessness. You were wrong and every dictionary confirms it. QED Just say oops and move on.

 

[Van]

Hi Shernren, I see you are back to attacking my qualifications. Folks, when anyone seeks to change the subject from the topic to the qualifications of the opponent, that is tantamount to declaring the opponent has presented the view closest to the truth. Otherwise, they would stick to the position.

And yes we agree, the deistic view, "a" is not the one closest to biblical truth.

I did not see where John Adam's said "the bible is inadequate to reveal God." Note that the Bible says "the heavens declare his glory." Thus the Bible's revelation is that God is revealed in nature.

The John Locke quote was non-germane.

 

[Van]

Do we have an apologist like me that says "They decide that gee, the Bible doesn't really have what it takes to reveal God." Is Thomas Paine a Christian Apologist. If you take a look at "Age of Reason" you will not see much of an apologist for Christ. Thus Shernren makes one claim, then defend it with non-germane quotes. Go figure.

 

[Van]

Next, Shernren is back to mind reading telling me what he reads in my mind. I kid you not.

My BS meter is not broken, Shernren. Your defintion of scientific concordism equates with the view of YEC. But Mallon equated it with OEC, and old earth creationists believe scripture and science teach the same truth, when correctly understood, which is the definition I proved. Now I may have misunderstood the meaning of the term, but I did provide a written and published defintion consistent with my understanding. Does "arcane veribage" ring a bell.

 

[artybloke]

So the "deistic view" is evolution occurred via naturalistic processes,

NO IT IS NOT!

 

[Van]

Hi IndyPirate. Yes, some OEC do indeed reject evolution by naturalisc processes, but others agree that evolution occurred over time, helped out by God's supernatural intervention. Thanks for answering my question. All any of us can do is state clearly what we believe and listen to others to see if we have missed the mark.