Saving Darwin

[Mallon]

If this published view is valid, then there is no difference between scientific concordism and evolutionary creationists.

In what way?

 

[Van]

In the obvious way.

 

[Van]

So it now appears that the term scientific concordism carries a special definition at this forum, rather than the one I provided. And the special definition means the opposite, that of science and scripture do not agree because the present understanding of scripture according to the YEC viewpoint does not accord with science. Thus I ask for the difference between OEC and TE, because IndyPirate said he changed from one to the other, and receive an answer, once the arcane verbiage is swept away, of a difference between YEC and TE.

And IndyPirate still has not explained why he changed his viewpoint, from OEC to TE. My guess to repeat myself is to say he rejects special creation, and accepts the deistic view that life evolved naturally from non-life.

But thanks for relating John Stott's homo divinus via supernatural means view, because that is the view I presented in the Human Spirit thread which was rejected by those who posted as not a TE view. John Stott indicates God created homo divinus around 10,000 years ago, in the age of Neolithic farmers. But as one of the posters asserted, this divine likeness imbued by the God breathed soul, only enhanced the cognative ability of the pre-Adamic creatures. Therefore, prior to being created in the image of God, they painted pictures in caves and buried their dead, according to Stott.

 

[shernren]

So it now appears that the term scientific concordism carries a special definition at this forum, rather than the one I provided. And the special definition means the opposite, that of science and scripture do not agree because the present understanding of scripture according to the YEC viewpoint does not accord with science. Thus I ask for the difference between OEC and TE, because IndyPirate said he changed from one to the other, and receive an answer, once the arcane verbiage is swept away, of a difference between YEC and TE.

And IndyPirate still has not explained why he changed his viewpoint, from OEC to TE. My guess to repeat myself is to say he rejects special creation, and accepts the deistic view that life evolved naturally from non-life.

But thanks for relating John Stott's homo divinus via supernatural means view, because that is the view I presented in the Human Spirit thread which was rejected by those who posted as not a TE view. John Stott indicates God created homo divinus around 10,000 years ago, in the age of Neolithic farmers. But as one of the posters asserted, this divine likeness imbued by the God breathed soul, only enhanced the cognative ability of the pre-Adamic creatures. Therefore, prior to being created in the image of God, they painted pictures in caves and buried their dead, according to Stott.

"Arcane verbiage" is the thanks I get for putting together a reply? Man. Get used to people disagreeing with you, and be at least a bit more grateful for the fact that they actually think you're worth the time of typing up a reply. (A thought I'm rapidly losing grasp of.)

I did present the difference between OEC and TE: OEC still believes in special miraculous creations of life, while TEs don't. Most IDists would actually fall into the OEC category, and you don't get farther from TE than that. What I said was that in our current classifications of YEC, TE, and ID, the need to distinguish between OECs and TEs is normally not very great. The main OEC ministry out there, Reasons to Believe, makes most of its living combating YEC from a standpoint agnostic to biological evolution. As far as I know they don't spend a lot of time (if any) countering biological evolution.

And did John Stott say God increased the intellectual capacity of the hominids in His image? I'm afraid you may have the concept of homo divinus gravely wrong.

 

[Mallon]

In the obvious way.

Humor me, Van, and please answer the question rather than simply brushing it off. In what way is there "no difference between scientific concordism and evolutionary creationists"? I'm asking nicely.

So it now appears that the term scientific concordism carries a special definition at this forum, rather than the one I provided.

Where did you ever provide a definition of scientific concordism? Certainly not in this thread you haven't.

And the special definition means the opposite, that of science and scripture do not agree because the present understanding of scripture according to the YEC viewpoint does not accord with science.

Scientific concordism is simply the expectation that the Bible necessarily agrees with modern scientific findings, lest it somehow prove to be uninspired or fallible. Concordists believe that the Bible rises or falls based on how well it holds up to scientific scrutiny. Accommodationsits do not.

My guess to repeat myself is to say he rejects special creation, and accepts the deistic view that life evolved naturally from non-life.

There you go equating natural processes with God's absence again. What you're saying here is: miraculous creation ex nihilo = God present; natural evolutionary process = God absent = deism. That is NOT what evolutionary creationists believe! Evolutionary creationists believe that God is intimately involved with His creation at all times. But that does not mean He is necessarily working miracles through it at all times. I honestly don't know why you keep stumbling on this issue when you've been corrected on it so many times by so many different people. Again, I think your accusation of evolutionary creationists as deists says more about your own deism (that is, your constantly assuming that natural = without God) than that which you accuse us of.

 

[Van]

And I explained it nicely twice.

Next, Mallon you say I did not offer a definition. Fine.

And in the next sentence you provide a definition at odds with the one I provided. LOL

And stop defining what I am saying, you seem not to be able to comprehend posts.

 

[Van]

Hi Shernren, the arcane verbiage were the undefined terms scientific concordism and accommodationism. You provided a definition of scientific concordism at odds with the published view. I do not recall that you offered a definition of accommodationism. And what part of enhanced the cognative ability so they could relate to God is not absolutely what John Stott said.

"But Adam was the first homo divinus, if I may coin a phrase, the first man to whom may be given the Biblical designation ‘made in the image of God’. Precisely what the divine likeness was, which was stamped upon him, we do not know, for Scripture nowhere tells us. But Scripture seems to suggest that it includes rational, moral, social, and spiritual faculties which make man unlike all other creatures and like God the creator, and on account of which he was given ‘dominion’ over the lower creation." Understanding the Bible, page 63.

 

[Van]

Still waiting for IndyPirate to step up the plate and explain what he meant.

 

[Mallon]

Ah, I see you did provide a definition of scientific concordism in the form of an earlier quote, Van. My apologies. I missed it. Regardless, the definition I provided is the same as the one you provided, so I don't know how you are interpreting the definition so as to see "no difference between scientific concordism and evolutionary creationists". I suspect there is some confusion surrounding what it means for there to be an accord between science and the Bible. I'll try to clarify...
1) Evolutionary creationists believe that science and the Bible are compatible -- not because the Bible is scientifically correct throughout -- but because they seek to reveal very different things about the world. The Bible is a book of faith, written to tell us about the purpose God has for us. Science is a methodology used to tell us about the mechanics of how the world operates. These two means of understanding our world are complimentary, and are compatible as such, but this is not what it meant by "scientific concordism".
2) Scientific concordism is just the opposite, in fact. It is the view that the Bible is scientifically accurate in all matters of the world to which it speaks (creation, flood geology, systematics, etc.). It rejects the accommodationist views of evolutionary creationists, and argues that the science of the Bible is not simply incidental, but that it is an entirely accurate picture of how the world operates. This is what it meant by the published definition of "scientific concordism". But you don't have to take my word for it. You can read more about concordism (and non-concordism) here :
http://science.drvinson.net/non-concordism
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF3-07Seely2.pdf

And stop defining what I am saying, you seem not to be able to comprehend posts.

I think I understand you quite well in this regard because you keep repeating the same chorus. You said that the evolution of life from non-life is a deistic view. Specifically, you said, "My guess to repeat myself is to say he rejects special creation, and accepts the deistic view that life evolved naturally from non-life." Likewise, you equated natural processes with godlessness here, here, and here. It is quite obvious from the way you speak that you see natural, everyday processes in nature as happening apart from God's sustaining and providence (even if only subconsciously). But when pressed on it, you're very quick to deny ever holding such a view, accusing others instead of misinterpreting you. I think your own words speak for themselves, though. You very clearly appear to think that the only time God is involved with His creation is when He is working miracles.

 

[shernren]

And stop defining what I am saying, you seem not to be able to comprehend posts.

Are you in leauge with the ironymeter manufacturers or something?

Hi Shernren, the arcane verbiage were the undefined terms scientific concordism and accommodationism. You provided a definition of scientific concordism at odds with the published view. I do not recall that you offered a definition of accommodationism. And what part of enhanced the cognative ability so they could relate to God is not absolutely what John Stott said.

"But Adam was the first homo divinus, if I may coin a phrase, the first man to whom may be given the Biblical designation ‘made in the image of God’. Precisely what the divine likeness was, which was stamped upon him, we do not know, for Scripture nowhere tells us. But Scripture seems to suggest that it includes rational, moral, social, and spiritual faculties which make man unlike all other creatures and like God the creator, and on account of which he was given ‘dominion’ over the lower creation." Understanding the Bible, page 63.

(emphasis added) Not just rational. And it's a big mistake to think that humans engage God primarily through the mind. We can engage the idea of God, but to encounter God, and to have faith in Him? Why, a child can do that.

 

[Van]

Hi Shernren, Mallon says he was wrong when he said I had not provided a definition, and you post that my observation of him not being able to comprehend posts is irony? You see not to understand the meaning of words.

Next you agree with me, but do not say oops. Now that is irony. Did I say anything of humans engage God primarily through the mind? Nope. It seems I understood John Stott and you did not.

 

[Mallon]

Mallon says he was wrong when he said I had not provided a definition, and you post that my observation of him not being able to comprehend posts is irony? You see not to understand the meaning of words.

Well, in all honesty, you completely misinterpreted the Denis Lamoureux definition of "scientific concordism" that you cited earlier. Read it again:

"Concordism (or better, scientific concordism), which is foundational to their [Creationist] principles of biblical interpretation, is the belief that there exists an accord between science and Scripture."

... which you go on to interpret as:

"If this published view is valid, then there is no difference between scientific concordism and evolutionary creationists."

So the first quote assigns scientific concordism to non-evolutionary creationists, and then you go on to assign it to evolutionary creationists. I would be a little slower to accuse others of misinterpretation and of not "understanding the meaning of words", then. Mine was an oversight; yours was a genuine misinterpretation.

 

[Van]

Concordism (or better, scientific concordism), which is foundational to their [Creationist] principles of biblical interpretation, is the belief that there exists an accord between science and Scripture.

Scientific concordism is simply the expectation that the Bible necessarily agrees with modern scientific findings, lest it somehow prove to be uninspired or fallible.

Folks, if you can read you now know that these two very different definitions of "scientific concordism" are not the same. In the first, it is asserted there is an accord, but we might not see it because of a flawed understanding of the Bible or a flawed understanding of science. In the second definition, the idea is presented that we must interpret the Bible in accord with the current understanding of science. This is not what OEC believe.

Next Mallon makes yet another false charge. He says I equate natural processes with godlessness. This is false. I have posted the exact opposite. Recall God did it either naturally or supernaturally? He provided three links, none of which support is false assertion.

 

[Van]

And yet another one, OEC are not anti-evolutionary creationists. That was your claim Mallon and was refuted by others. You applied the term to OEC, not YEC who are anti-evolutionists. Does "active sustainer" versus "passive sustainer" refer to godless processes? Nope.

 

[Van]

Still waiting for IndyPirate to explain what he meant when he said he changed from OEC to TE. What did you reject and what did you accept?

 

[Mallon]

Folks, if you can read you now know that these two very different definitions of "scientific concordism" are not the same. In the first, it is asserted they is an accord, but we might not see it because of a flawed understanding of the Bible or a flawed understanding of science. In the second definition, the idea is presented that we must interpret the Bible in accord with the current understanding of science. This is not what OEC believe.

You can accuse me of not understanding Lamoureux's definition of scientific concordism all you want. I should point out that he's the one who taught me the meaning of the term, though, since he's the one who came up with it. In fact, I've spoken with him about it over the phone. He's told me personally that he's glad I "get it". If the guy who coined the term "scientific concordism" has told me personally that I "get it", I should think I do.
Check out his book Evolutionary Creationism if you want to get it, too. Because you don't.

Next Mallon makes yet another false charge. He says I equate natural processes with godlessness. This is false. I have posted the exact opposite. Recall God did it either naturally or supernaturally? He provided three links, none of which support is false assertion.

Why do you keep referring to the natural process of evolution as "deistic", then, if you see God as fully capable of working with and through the natural processes He has created? Again, you've said these very things here, here, here, and here. Do you not see that what you profess to believe and what you actually say are completely contradictory?

OEC are not anti-evolutionary creationists.

Sure they are. Read the works of self-professed OEC Hugh Ross lately?
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#creation_vs_evolution
The wikipedia article is helpful in this regard, too:
"OEC rejects the scientific consensus accepting evolution".
This may not reflect your own personal views, but OECs are, not doubt, by and large anti-evolution. The only difference between YECs and OECs is that the latter accept the scientific evidence in favour of the ancient age of the Earth. Both parties reject evolutionary common ancestry and accommodationism.

 

[Mallon]

Still waiting for IndyPirate to explain what he meant when he said he changed from OEC to TE. What did you reject and what did you accept?

And I'm still waiting for an answer to my earlier request from you here:
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=49511300&postcount=123

 

[shernren]

Still waiting for IndyPirate to explain what he meant when he said he changed from OEC to TE. What did you reject and what did you accept?

Chillax, dude. Some of us have real lives to live.

 

[artybloke]

I honestly don't know why you keep stumbling on this issue when you've been corrected on it so many times by so many different people.

Same reason all creationists keep pumping out the same disproved lies that they always do. They think that by repeating it they'll convince those who are listening in.

 

[Van]

I would love to read about your theory of everything, Van, including the origins of the universe and life. Perhaps you could start a new thread where you summarize your position because you appear to take some unorthodox middle ground between YEC and EC that I have yet to fully appreciate. ROLMOLFLOL.

Folks note that I have answered this question. Not string theory, but simply my beliefs based on my limited understanding of the Bible and science. God caused the big bang supernaturally. That answers the question origin of the Universe. God caused life to spring forth from the earth supernaturally. That answers the question of the origin of life. I believe the earth is older than 10,000 years, perhaps even 2 billion years old. I classify myself as an OEC, and that physical death existed before the fall of Adam. In the examples "a" and "b" I indicated I believed in "b", making me both a theistic evolutionist and an Old Earth Creationist.

But I am still waiting for Indypirate to explain what he rejected and accepted when he switched from the "OEC" label to the "TE" label.