The problem with science & evoulution

[Vance]

Pudmuddle:

You are right that God explained His creation in a way that the important principals would be understandable to all, but the details could not be discerned from the text itself. This does not mean that some of the details can not later be understood by studying His creation first hand.

You are right that if Adam's bones were found today, and identified to everyone's satisfaction (impossible, I know, but for the sake of argument), then the bones would look just like those of one who had been born as a baby and grew, etc. And, if you believe that Adam was created as an adult, then you are right, the conclusion that he *was* born as a baby, etc, would be an incorrect one, obviously.

But this would simply be an instance of a supernatural act over-riding a natural process. Science can only identify the natural processes and make whatever conclusion are most likely from that. So, science would still be correct in identifying the process, but any who drew the natural conclusions would be incorrect (again, assuming you believe that Adam was created as an adult).

Science tells us the natural process and explains its ramifications. We, as Christians, simply add in a "unless God overrode that process in this or that instance". Science could, of course, add that extra little caveat in every conclusion they reach, but this would be a bit cumbersome and, really, is not needed for two reasons:

1. Those who believe in God's ability to over-ride the natural processes already know that this caveat exists.

2. Science, as a general community, has many times and oft, proclaimed that very caveat as a given (by indicating that they can not incorporate the supernatural, so to the extent it involves itself in the natural processes, science would not be able to account for it).

So, science should go on doing what it does best: discovering what it can about this natural world. The process works very well, and has benefitted your life in a thousand ways every day. Be thankful for it. But, as Christians, we just filter it for the mistakes it might make due to its acknowleged "blind spot".

When the Bible describes a miracle, my acceptance of general scientific principals prevent me from believing the miracle happened. However, when the findings of science actually help explain exactly *how* God might have done the miracle, I will definitely consider it.

 

[lucaspa]

A material process when thing are spoke into existance?

Yes, basically. One second it isn't there and the next it is. In its present form. As I said, that combined with the timing and sequence, makes a material method that can be tested. Such instantaneous creation leaves evidence that can be studied today.

Just as one example, Adam was created as a man, not as a baby. If his remains were discovered, he would be assumed to have grown into adulthood like any other man.

No, he wouldn't. He wouldn't have a navel. That comes from birth and the umbilical cord. Adam wasn't born, no umbilical cord, no navel.

God is not required to show us every detail of how he created through his creation.

I'm not asking Him to. You are. You are saying that you don't know the details of poofing, therefore you can't know that God didn't create by poofing. I'm saying that I don't need the details of poofing, just like I don't need the details of how DBM works, to recognize that DBM causes ectopic bone formation or that God did indeed create by poofing.

You are trying to judge God by his standard for man. This is the same arguement atheists use against God killing in the OT. God does not have to follow the rules he sets down for men.

I'm not judging God at all. I'm judging a man-made theory on how God created. Creationists have created a scientific theory based upon their literal interpretation of Genesis, the pagan ideas of Aristotle and Plato, and the Argument from Design. In the theory creationists proposed a particular how that God created. They say that if I look in God's Creation I will see that God created that way. I do look in God's Creation and find that He created a different way.

As I said, this isn't about God. It's about a man-made theory on how God works. Evolution for a Christian is just as much about how God works as is Creation Science.

Nice try to bring in atheism and hopefully gain ground against my pointing out that you accept atheism. However, since I'm not doing what you think, it was all for naught. Better luck next time.

But not all of God's acts are understandable by human logic. Our minds are finite. His is not.

We may not understand it, but it has to be rational. It can't be irrational such that it appears to be something it isn't. And God simply can't help but leave the evidence behind unless He deliberately conceals it. But then that denies another basic tenet of God: He is trustworthy.

The Bible was written for man, so it was written so man could understand it. Again, God is under no obligation to explain everything to us in the natural world. The very fact that we don't understand leaves room for awe and mystery. He leaves room for our faith to work.
"Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe."

God-of-the-gaps. It's not that God was under an obligation to us, but under an obligation to Himself. Unless He deliberately deceives, He cannot avoid leaving evidence of how He created. Actions have consequences. Cause and effect.

We already have room for our faith to work in the intervention of God in history and His personal communication to people via the Holy Ghost. Neither are amenable to science.

God created angels, one of which is now Satan. Can we truly understand how this happened? No, therefore we do not understand all of creation, but we can believe.

That's one theology. I'm not sure it is the correct one. Read Elaine Pagel's The Evolution of Satan. I'm not willing to accept your premise about Satan. I think Satan as you use it is a human invention.

Also, the problem is not in understanding all of creation. It is possible that we will never do that. In fact, both Chaos and Complexity Theories put limits on particular phenomenon. The Uncertainty Principle puts absolute limits on some knowledge.

The problem is that there are mountains of data in Creation that simply can't be there if God really created by creationism. IOW, if Creation Science is true, that data can't exist. Since it does exist, Creation Science and YEC can't be true. While we may not be able to know everything, we know absolutely that God did not create by the theory of Creation Science or YEC.

 

[lucaspa]

You are trying to judge God by his standard for man. This is the same arguement atheists use against God killing in the OT. God does not have to follow the rules he sets down for men.

As an aside, Pudmuddle, if this is the argument you are using against the atheists, then I suspect you are having very large problems with your apologetics. This isn't the counter to that argument.

Consider this: Is something good because God commands it or does God command it because it is good?

 

[ern]

The Bible is a book on theology, not science. You are trying to force the Bible into being something that it's not and was never intended to be, it's not supposed to tell us how the universe works, it tells us about our relationship with God.

It also tells us about God, and shows His power, and sometimes God's power affects things studied in science. It might not tell us how the universe works, but it surely does tell us how it began.

 

[lucaspa]

It also tells us about God, and shows His power, and sometimes God's power affects things studied in science. It might not tell us how the universe works, but it surely does tell us how it began.

What is science, Ern? It's the study of God's Creation! That makes science reading the second book of God. So how is the Bible supposed to affect things studied in science? And what do you mean by "God's power"? Do you mean your interpretation of the Bible? That's what it comes down to, isn't it. Your interpretation of the Bible is supposed to dictate the reading of God's second book. Why? Why is your interpretation so powerful that it should override God?

 

[ern]

So how is the Bible supposed to affect things studied in science?

We look at what science says, then look to the Bible to see what it says. Whatever science says that the Bible disagrees with must be: A, a misinterpretation of the Bible, B, a mistake on our part somewhere in science, or C, a shortcoming of science, something is there that science cannont see.
I propose that evolution falls in either B or C, and more specifically in this thread C. There are a host of other threads about B.

And what do you mean by "God's power"?

He shows his power in many places: the creation account, the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues of Egypt... the list goes on and on and on.

Do you mean your interpretation of the Bible? That's what it comes down to, isn't it. Your interpretation of the Bible is supposed to dictate the reading of God's second book. Why? Why is your interpretation so powerful that it should override God?

Who's interpretation would it be but mine? Everyone should read the Bible, and interpret it by themselves and also look for others, and study and interpret together. As for science beings God's second book. Science is not "God breathed", man came up with it to help study God's creation, and in some places it comes up short. So my interpretation has every right to override science and in no way overrides God.

 

[-=Burnt Toast=-]

Isnt it dangerous that to say that science does not cover the supernatural but then to say that the supernatural does exist, hence giving science no validity if it partially fails to explain somethin, for it gives us the ability to then say, "Science cannot explain it, thus it must be supernatural... it is God will" thus this does not allow us to delve into it any more, as it already has a cause "god"

 

[Plan 9]

A material process when thing are spoke into existance? Just as one example, Adam was created as a man, not as a baby. If his remains were discovered, he would be assumed to have grown into adulthood like any other man. So, yes, the evidence would contradict the truth.

Pudmuddle, are you asserting that if Adam's remains were found today, in a perfect state of preservation, that he would have a navel?

 

[wblastyn]

Isnt it dangerous that to say that science does not cover the supernatural but then to say that the supernatural does exist, hence giving science no validity if it partially fails to explain somethin, for it gives us the ability to then say, "Science cannot explain it, thus it must be supernatural... it is God will" thus this does not allow us to delve into it any more, as it already has a cause "god"

You can say you believe the supernatural exists but you can't support it with science, it's your personal belief.

 

[Vance]

Science is the study of God's creation in its natural state (how God set it up to work when He is not taking a direct intervening action).

Religion is the study of those intervening actions and what they mean for us.

 

[lucaspa]

We look at what science says, then look to the Bible to see what it says. Whatever science says that the Bible disagrees with must be: A, a misinterpretation of the Bible, B, a mistake on our part somewhere in science, or C, a shortcoming of science, something is there that science cannont see.
I propose that evolution falls in either B or C, and more specifically in this thread C. There are a host of other threads about B.

So what happened to A? Evolution falls into A -- misinterpretation of the Bible. See both quotes in my signature.

Who's interpretation would it be but mine? Everyone should read the Bible, and interpret it by themselves and also look for others, and study and interpret together.

The second sentence contradicts the first. What makes your interpretation preeminent among the interpretations derived together?

As for science beings God's second book. Science is not "God breathed",

If God really created, that's exactly what science is: "God breathed".

man came up with it to help study God's creation, and in some places it comes up short. So my interpretation has every right to override science and in no way overrides God.

Why would science come up short? What is the basic material science is working with? The evidence God left in His Creation. What is the primary rule of science: to discard any idea if the evidence in the physical universe shows it to be wrong. What's more, science works only with evidence that is available to everyone under approximately the same circumstances.

So, what science works with is the evidence everyone can see that God left in His Creation. Evidence that Catholics, Protestants, Jews, agnostics, and atheists can see exactly the same. Since the evidence comes directly from God and is available to everyone, it overrides your interpretation of the Bible. You can read the Bible wrong; but everyone simply can't be wrong reading evidence God left directly.

Not only do you override God, you set yourself up above God.

 

[lucaspa]

Isnt it dangerous that to say that science does not cover the supernatural but then to say that the supernatural does exist,

Science does not directly test the supernatural because it can't. It's a direct limitation from how we do experiments. As far as science is concerned, it cannot comment on the supernatural. It neither affirms nor denies it; science simply can't comment.

People who believe the supernatural exists do so from evidence and reasons that do not come from science.

hence giving science no validity if it partially fails to explain somethin, for it gives us the ability to then say, "Science cannot explain it, thus it must be supernatural... it is God will" thus this does not allow us to delve into it any more, as it already has a cause "god"

What you have laid out is a danger to Christianity, not science. What you have laid out is god-of-the-gaps. Note that the underlying presumption here is that God is absent when science can provide a material explanation. So, God exists where science can't explain but does exist where science can't explain. This is dangerous for God because science could later find a material explanation.

The danger to further investigation comes not from "Goddidit" per se, but when you get to "God did it purely from personal whim without any logical reason." Thus, saying "God created each species as it is today by an instantaneous miraculous creation and designed the species to fit in the environment" is OK because it supposes that God had a reason for the design. Now, when you look, like Darwin did, at woodpeckers on the Argentinian pampas hundreds of miles from any tree, then you wonder if God created this way because it makes no sense to put a woodpecker where there are no trees. Sometimes the creationist comeback is: "God just wanted it that way." Now, that does tend to shut down investigation. However, it also makes God an irrational deity who does things on whim alone. That is not acceptable to a Christian. I personally don't want my salvation to depend on the whim of God and have Him say "Yes, you believe in Jesus, were repenetent, etc, but, like I just felt like putting woodpeckers where there are no trees, I just feel like denying you salvation today! Too bad." If God is really whimsical and irrational, He can certainly exist but I am equally certainly not going to trust Him or worship Him.