Scriptural Evidence?

[Loudmouth]

So then what are people called who don't believe God had anything to do with anything?

Agnostics and atheists.

 

[Oliver]

Problem clearly is that I'm having a hard time knowing what to believe.

As an agnostic, I'm used to not knowing for sure either . But I'm perfectly happy with that, and I can imagine that a Christian could be undecided as to God's exact method of Creation and be perfectly happy with it too.

 

[Morallyangelic]

You mean people who think God exists but had no hand whatsoever in Creation? Well, I don't know if there are many people sharing this belief, but I guess they'd be classified as TEs too since they are theists and accept evolution.

But in my experience, people who think God had nothing to do with Creation tend to not be Christians, and are usually agnostic or atheists (at least on these forums). There may be other religions though who don't ascribe (is it good english?) a creative role to their god(s), I honestly don't know.

No, I meant people who believe in evolution but don't believe God had anything to do with it.

 

[Oliver]

Then if they think God doesn't exists or are unsure about it, they're atheists or agnostics.

 

[Morallyangelic]

As an agnostic, I'm used to not knowing for sure either . But I'm perfectly happy with that, and I can imagine that a Christian could be undecided as to God's exact method of Creation and be perfectly happy with it too.

Thanks for your information.

 

[sparklecat]

You could call them naturalists, if they don't believe anything supernatural happened in how the Universe and humankind came about.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

MA - here's a way of looking at it from a TE perspective.

Do you believe that God created you?

Naturally, I can assume you will answer in the affirmative.

If you ask a theologian where you came from, he will tell you that God made you.

If you ask a biologist, he will start talking about eggs, sperm, embryology and so on and so forth.

Now, I expect you understand perfectly well how these two answers are not in conflict? One is stating a spiritual truth, that God is your ultimate source, and, moreover, from a Christian viewpoint, God was quite deliberate about creating specifically you, yes?

But the biologist doesn't invoke God. That doesn't make his explanation false either, though, does it? You also accept that you did come from a conception event, where it was random which sperm got there first, and from two parents whose meeting was itself contingent on a vast number of other factors. For example, my parents happened to meet because my father wanted to learn to dance and chose a particular place to go to learn, where my mother happened to go. Now, you may by faith see the hand of God in this randomness, but you would agree that from a purely material frame of reference it is indeed random and contingent?

Now, if your coming into the world as a particular human being, down to contingency and randomness from a material frame of reference is not contradictory to God's intentional creation of you, then similarly the appearance of our species, through random mutation, natural selection (which from a species point of view has a lot to do with being in the right place at the right time) and sheer happenstance, is not contradictory to God's intentional creation of our species as we ended up and are now. God is big enough to use what is from a material - that is, a scientific - frame of reference randomness and contingency. You might at a philosophical level say that since God is omniscient what is to us randomness is not random to God, and that's fine; it doesn't change what is random to science, and doesn't make either the philosophical point, or the scientific one, false.

That's my view, at any rate, for what it's worth.

 

[Kinseek]

No, I meant people who believe in evolution but don't believe God had anything to do with it.

You would still call them a TE. (or an atheist depending on what you actually mean here)

Being a TE doesn`t necessarily mean that you believe God intervenes or even directly created the evolutionary process. Basically the term just means someone that "believes there exists a God and evolution has ocurred and is occurring). The degree to which a TE believes God has any fingers involved in evolution itself is not covered by this term. (he might have just created the Big Bang and let things run from there, or he might have intervened and created the first life and perhaps even guided mutations and enviromental pressure)

 

[Oliver]

Nice analogy, Karl. I'll have to remember to use it next time I see such a question on a forum, if you allow me to.

 

[Morallyangelic]

MA - here's a way of looking at it from a TE perspective.

Do you believe that God created you?

Naturally, I can assume you will answer in the affirmative.

If you ask a theologian where you came from, he will tell you that God made you.

If you ask a biologist, he will start talking about eggs, sperm, embryology and so on and so forth.

Now, I expect you understand perfectly well how these two answers are not in conflict? One is stating a spiritual truth, that God is your ultimate source, and, moreover, from a Christian viewpoint, God was quite deliberate about creating specifically you, yes?

But the biologist doesn't invoke God. That doesn't make his explanation false either, though, does it? You also accept that you did come from a conception event, where it was random which sperm got there first, and from two parents whose meeting was itself contingent on a vast number of other factors. For example, my parents happened to meet because my father wanted to learn to dance and chose a particular place to go to learn, where my mother happened to go. Now, you may by faith see the hand of God in this randomness, but you would agree that from a purely material frame of reference it is indeed random and contingent?

Now, if your coming into the world as a particular human being, down to contingency and randomness from a material frame of reference is not contradictory to God's intentional creation of you, then similarly the appearance of our species, through random mutation, natural selection (which from a species point of view has a lot to do with being in the right place at the right time) and sheer happenstance, is not contradictory to God's intentional creation of our species as we ended up and are now. God is big enough to use what is from a material - that is, a scientific - frame of reference randomness and contingency. You might at a philosophical level say that since God is omniscient what is to us randomness is not random to God, and that's fine; it doesn't change what is random to science, and doesn't make either the philosophical point, or the scientific one, false.

That's my view, at any rate, for what it's worth.

So it's not contradictory to say that God used evolution as a means?
If it's not contradictory then why do so many creationist's insist that evolution is evil? Where are they getting this point of view from?

And I appreciate your view. Thank you.

 

[Oliver]

In part from their cultural background, which tells them since they're small children that evolutionsinsts are atheists and so on. You have to realize that it is mainly an American phenomenon.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So it's not contradictory to say that God used evolution as a means?

Absolutely not. When you start asking questions about "Did God use evolution", you're in philosophical areas that science does not attempt to cover, because you're starting to ask questions about meaning and purpose. Science doesn't address that.

If it's not contradictory then why do so many creationist's insist that evolution is evil? Where are they getting this point of view from?

Personally, I think it's a category error. Evolution and the creation doctrine do not contradict because they ask, and answer, different questions. The error creeps in on both the militant atheist side, when evolution is somehow misapplied to answer the metaphysical "who" and "why" questions, and from the fundamentalist side when creation is misapplied to answer the physical "how" question. This misapplication from either side brings them into conflict.

Note the distinction between creationism and the creation doctrine. The former is what is in my opinion the category error - using theological concepts to answer scientific "how" questions, and thereby having to say that mainstream science is wrong because it comes up with a different "how" answer. The creation doctrine is simply the theological statement that whatever happened scientifically, God did it.

To be fair, if one is wedded to a completely literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, then it naturally follows that ones theology will attempt to answer the "how" question. It is in the decision to interpret Genesis 1-3 that the category error is made, because these are not scientific documents, but theological ones. There are very good internal reasons to see them as primarily theological; consequently any apparent scientific content is secondary and since science is not the intent of the text, can be scientifically incorrect without violating Biblical infallibility - since Genesis 1 was not written to teach science, it cannot be faulted if it does not accurately do so.

Methinks non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is another thread, though. My webpage here: http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm might be a good starting place.

Oliver - feel free. I nicked the idea from Ken Miller anyway.

 

[Morallyangelic]

In part from their cultural background, which tells them since they're small children that evolutionsinsts are atheists and so on. You have to realize that it is mainly an American phenomenon.

So it's a misunderstanding?

 

[Oliver]

So it's a misunderstanding?

For many, I'd say yes. But I've also seen so many who are unwilling to learn. For them, it really comes down to an ideological opposition.

 

[Mystman]

For many, I'd say yes. But I've also seen so many who are unwilling to learn. For them, it really comes down to an ideological opposition.

An example of this would be many of the posts in the Christian Only Origins Theology forum..

http://www.christianforums.com/t2060527-why-do-some-christians-dismiss-evolution.html

"Why do some Christians dismiss evolution?"

Genesis speaks of creation in six days. I trust this account, given by God, over what scientists say.

Call it my interpretation, call it my ignorance, call it whatever you wish. Either I believe as I do, and not one New Testament Author is in error of what they preach, or accept TEs view and every New Testament Author is in error of what they teach.

Rationalize, trivialize with your logic, your own perception, but I don't trust those, even of myself. I will just accept what is written as it is written and follow Jesus Christ to the best of my abilities.

Translation: I'm not going to think. I'm just going to read the Bible here in a 100% literal way, and whatever that says is truth, and it doesn't matter if every logic-fiber in my brain says otherwise.

 

[Kinseek]

If it's not contradictory then why do so many creationist's insist that evolution is evil? Where are they getting this point of view from?

I`d say its a combination of ignorance and arrogance.

 

[Morallyangelic]

Absolutely not. When you start asking questions about "Did God use evolution", you're in philosophical areas that science does not attempt to cover, because you're starting to ask questions about meaning and purpose. Science doesn't address that.



Personally, I think it's a category error. Evolution and the creation doctrine do not contradict because they ask, and answer, different questions. The error creeps in on both the militant atheist side, when evolution is somehow misapplied to answer the metaphysical "who" and "why" questions, and from the fundamentalist side when creation is misapplied to answer the physical "how" question. This misapplication from either side brings them into conflict.

Note the distinction between creationism and the creation doctrine. The former is what is in my opinion the category error - using theological concepts to answer scientific "how" questions, and thereby having to say that mainstream science is wrong because it comes up with a different "how" answer. The creation doctrine is simply the theological statement that whatever happened scientifically, God did it.

To be fair, if one is wedded to a completely literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, then it naturally follows that ones theology will attempt to answer the "how" question. It is in the decision to interpret Genesis 1-3 that the category error is made, because these are not scientific documents, but theological ones. There are very good internal reasons to see them as primarily theological; consequently any apparent scientific content is secondary and since science is not the intent of the text, can be scientifically incorrect without violating Biblical infallibility - since Genesis 1 was not written to teach science, it cannot be faulted if it does not accurately do so.

Methinks non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is another thread, though. My webpage here: http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm might be a good starting place.

Oliver - feel free. I nicked the idea from Ken Miller anyway.

So evolution doesn't deal with the ' HOW ' it all got started, it mostly deals with what has happened or is happening?

 

[Morallyangelic]

An example of this would be many of the posts in the Christian Only Origins Theology forum..

http://www.christianforums.com/t2060527-why-do-some-christians-dismiss-evolution.html

"Why do some Christians dismiss evolution?"



Translation: I'm not going to think. I'm just going to read the Bible here in a 100% literal way, and whatever that says is truth, and it doesn't matter if every logic-fiber in my brain says otherwise.

So if I believe one of these two scenerios ... That means what?

1. Adam & Eve
2. Noah & the flood.

If I believe those two things does that mean I cannot believe in evolution?

 

[Oliver]

It's the other way round: evolution deals with how species appeared, not why or who created them. "How it all started" is broader a field of enquiry though: evolution doesn't deal with how the universe started, only the origin of species.

 

[Oliver]

So if I believe one of these two scenerios ... That means what?

1. Adam & Eve
2. Noah & the flood.

If I believe those two things does that mean I cannot believe in evolution?

It depends if you believe Adam and Eve where actualy one man and one woman, or if they're a metaphor for mankind, or if you believe the flood was global or not. (note that the latter conflicts with geology more than evolution).