The Revolutionary Faith - Evolution is the deistic creation story of Nature's god

[Jipsah]

Many of us believe that the God of Moses is nature's God.

Yep, He created it. And He obviously created it in such a way that the critters He created change over generations to adapt to their environments. Whether you call it that "evolution" or "natural adaptation" or whatever, it's observably true. To deny it is simpy to fly in the face of the truth. It's the way God designed things to work. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Him.

The basic philosophy behind theistic evolution is that God created it all regardless of the method he used.

In a nutshell. The idea that "God can't have done it that way!" is the worst kind of rubbish. I don't recall Him asking human's input on how He ought to the design His universe. But boy howdy, there are a bunch of people out there who just don't like the way He did it, and who have to deny that He actually did it that way. Hubris? By the bushel!

"In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God."
- John 1:1

Amen.

I tend to think that there is a mechanism behind the miraculous and that miracles are rare because God created the laws of nature on purpose.

Of course, hance my oft repeated assertion that the Laws of Nature are the Lawss of God. They're part of His design; the rules by which everything operates.

Not something that he would be inclined to frequently interrupt. He is supernatural in the sense that he is nature's creator and sustainer. He is able to act upon it in unexpected ways, but the system of nature itself is no less remarkable.

Reason and revelation can both provide useful insight about creation. Revelation can take the form of a "Eureka!" moment which may later be supported with reason, data, experience, etc. Which isn't to suggest that our finite mortal minds will ever fully comprehend the nature of reality, but insight can take many forms.

Well said.

 

[Jipsah]

For a Christian, evolution is the way God did it. As He mentions in Genesis, He uses nature to do most things in this world. Evolution is something we see happening constantly in His world. Why would you suppose it goes on contrary to His will?

Spot on.

There is no "evolutionary history of the Earth." That is just a creationist superstition.

Yep. And the scary thing is that it springs from the same mindset that gives us flat earthers. There's probably huge amount of overlap between the two groups, because they're both inspired by the notion that the Creation accountsin Genesis are complete technical descriptions of God's creation. To them, the whole incomprehensible vastness of God's designed is lost on them, and reduced to the - what? - 10 page poetic description given in Genesis. Anyone who says there's anything more to it than that is a heretic, an unbeliver, of both; and in any case, an enemy.

 

[Jipsah]

There's your Freudian slip.
"uses nature" = "evolution"
I know you wish that E word had a little more precision.

Shot who?

"evolution theory" is simply the biological aspect of Evolution. (there is also a geologic, planetary, cosmic aspects of Evolution) As you admitted in your first paragraph, Evolution is just nature doing things.

And nature does the things that it does, and in the way that it does, according to the rules set forth by the Designer of Nature, would you not agree?

Yea, the geologic history is how you believe Earth evolved.

As good a way of saying it as any. The natural laws established by God in His design of the universe determine how the earth has evolved. Do you find thjat idea objectionable?

It's not my fault your creation story uses such an ambiguous term... I'm just repeating the consensus view. Take it up with them.

I don't see any ambiguity there.

 

[Jipsah]

For a Christian, evolution is the way God did it.

Oh, no! He can't have designed it that way! It's simply not to be allowed!

As you just learned, there's no geological evolution. It's geological history.

I'll stand corrected on that one. I think of "geological evolution" as involving things like continental drift and long term changes in the atmosphere. I'll try to be more precise.

Entirely different theory. It's a tired old dodge, creationists trying to make evolution about everything in the universe. I don't know why you guys even try it these days.

It all goes back tp the "Genesis has to be literal" thing, which doesn't even hold up Scripturally.

You do know that "evolution" merely means "change", right? Darwin only used the word once in his entire book. He preferred "descent with modification." It might save you some confusion if you used Darwin's terminology in the future. It would surely save you a lot of embarrassment.

Can't do that "Darwin bad!"

 

[Jipsah]

Perhaps I am not the one who is confused.

Nah, I'm pretty sure it's you. But at least you're consistent.

Yes, as I already summarized in the OP, this belief system is known as Deism.

Well, no, that isn't altogether honest, now was it? Let's pick that one apart:

Deism, derived from the Latin term deus, meaning "god") is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge

Now as Christians, we obviously do not reject revelation at all, since the entire Bible is concerned primarily with the revelation of God, and ultimately His revelation as Jesus Christ, God Incarnate.

and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe.

Now while we have reason to believe that reason and observation are in fact sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being (The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.), we don't believe that they are sufficient to determine or understand the things of God, and more precisely, His Incarnation as the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ.

[More simply stated, Deism is the belief in... a God who does not intervene in the universe after creating it) solely based on rational thought without any reliance on revealed religions or religious authority.

These things, of course, we explicitly deny, as we follow the ultimate revealed Religion, with the Creator Who "became flesh and dwelt among us". I'm sure you'll want to bear this in mind lest you, in error, falsely accuse us of being deists or of adhering to deist beliefs.

Deism emphasizes the concept of natural theology—that is, God's existence is revealed through nature.

As Scripture reminds us, God's existence is in fact revealed through nature, but by no means exclusively so. God's existence was ultimately revealed by His Incarnation, His Death, and His Resurrection.

Any questions?

Everything became Evolution.

To whom?

What I've said here is that the origin and history of all the cosmos has been reinterpreted through the lens of 'natural change over time' i.e. "Evolution".

And again, to whom?

As I expanded on in the OP, this change replaced or at best syncretized Moses' God with Nature's god.

In some religion somewhere, no doubt.

The reason that the God of Moses and the god of Nature are so different is that Moses' God routinely invades world history at which times the regular processions of nature bow down to His particular will, in the sight of all. (It's written there in the Bible)

Just so. He is, after all the Designer and Creator of Nature in all its manifstation, and the Maker of all its Laws, even to those you may find objectionable.

Nature's god of Deism

(He said, fetching the strawman another whack or two.)

is ever distant and veiled by his creation, waiting to be unlocked only through the powers of Reason.

"Only"? No. Hit the straw guy another lick.

The charge of deism is false. I won't go so far as to say that you know that, but if you didn't know know before. you do now.

BTW, you're not Flat Earth, are you? It would be consistent, wouldn't it?

 

[The Barbarian]

The charge of deism is false. I won't go so far as to say that you know that, but if you didn't know know before. you do now.

Today's winner.

 

[Jipsah]

That's easily refutable. In Gnosticism, the demiurge (the creator of the physical world) is a deceitful lesser god.

I for one am very impressed with your knowledge of Gnosticism

I praise the Creator God as the Most High.

As long as He doesn't presume to do things that offend against your doctrine, of course. Like, say, creating a sphereoid earth, or designing animals to adapt to chaning environments over generations. Dunno whether y'all reckon that would have been too hard for Him to do, or whether you simply object to Him having done it without consulting you first.

Gnostics use the power of hidden knowledge and enlightenment to transcend the material world

Wel, again, you're obviously the resident expert on Gnosticism hereabouts. If I find that I'm developing an interest in ancient heresies I'll give you a holler.

Who does that sound more like?

A strawman being beaten yet again,

Of course, and I am grateful God revealed his work to Moses.

Especially as concerning evolution, or the alleged lack thereof.

 

[lifepsyop]

Your notion that God is not the creator of nature is a gnostic superstition.

Sounds like you. The notion of the material world as innately evil is completely wrong.

Sorry, this is bad even for you.

I stated outright that I praise God as the Creator of the material world.

You then proceed to claim that I don't believe that God created the material world, and that I think the material world is evil.

I barely have enough time for honest discussions, so I really have no time for this foolishness.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sorry, this is bad even for you.

I stated outright that I praise God as the Creator of the material world.

So do all gnostics. They just think he was a lesser god, unable to make creation to do as he intended. Your rejection of the notion that life came from non-life (as God says in Genesis) is sufficient to show us that.

 

[Jipsah]

I stated outright that I praise God as the Creator of the material world.

Yeah, you just don't approve of the way He designed things.

I barely have enough time for honest discussions

Honest? Like charging Christians with being "deists" because they accept God's design as it is rather than how you lot think it ought to be? Nothing at all honest about that, is there?

so I really have no time for this foolishness.

But it seems to be the foundation of your religion.

 

[lifepsyop]

I stated outright that I praise God as the Creator of the material world.

So do all gnostics. They just think he was a lesser god, unable to make creation to do as he intended.

Completely wrong. Gnosticism is very well known for specifically ascribing malevolence to the lesser creator god. So if you claim that Gnostics praise the lesser creator of the material world, you may as well be arguing that Christians praise Lucifer or Satan.

Your rejection of the notion that life came from non-life (as God says in Genesis) is sufficient to show us that.

Blatantly making up more things I never said. Sad...

 

[The Barbarian]

Completely wrong. Gnosticism is very well known for specifically ascribing malevolence to the lesser creator god.

I thought it was incompetence. But I'll defer to your expertise.

So if you claim that Gnostics praise the lesser creator of the material world, you may as well be arguing that Christians praise Lucifer or Satan.

I had no idea you interpreted the demiurge as Satan. You seem to be a bit conflicted about whether God is the Creator or if you think life came about from a lesser creator. But I don't know much about gnosticism, so again, I'll defer to your knowledge.

 

[lifepsyop]

Honest? Like charging Christians with being "deists"

Well, I do believe that modern theistic evolution can be sourced back to an acceptance of Deistic worldviews which gained ascendancy in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was a syncretizing, or mixing, of traditional Christian metaphysics based on Revelation and a deistic god of nature who lies distantly beyond a creation that is forever given over to the uniformitarian state of nature.

I am not accusing anyone of being a non-Christian.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, I do believe that modern theistic evolution can be sourced back to an acceptance of Deistic worldviews which gained ascendancy in the 17th and 18th centuries.

That seems completely backwards. Many deists thought, for example, that extinction was impossible.

Every race of animals seems to have received from their Maker certain laws of extension at the time of their formation. ... It may be asked, why I insert the Mammoth, as if it still existed? I ask in return, why I should omit it, as if it did not exist? Such is the economy of nature, that no instance can be produced of her having permitted any one race of her animals to become extinct; of her having formed any link in her great work so weak as to be broken.
Thomas Jefferson Notes on the State of Virginia

 

[lifepsyop]

That seems completely backwards. Many deists thought, for example, that extinction was impossible.

Maybe because they weren't reading their Bibles. We expected that massive extinctions occurred in the worldwide flood of Noah's day.

Every race of animals seems to have received from their Maker certain laws of extension at the time of their formation. ... It may be asked, why I insert the Mammoth, as if it still existed? I ask in return, why I should omit it, as if it did not exist? Such is the economy of nature, that no instance can be produced of her having permitted any one race of her animals to become extinct; of her having formed any link in her great work so weak as to be broken.
Thomas Jefferson Notes on the State of Virginia

Deists were also known for believing the state of nature was eternal, with no beginning or end. This is likely where the obsession with deep-time came from...

"Okay fine! there was a creation... but it was billions of years ago!"

They generally desire God's initial creative work to be very long ago and very far away.

 

[The Barbarian]

We expected that massive extinctions occurred in the worldwide flood of Noah's day.

Some people feel entitled to add whatever they like to the Bible. Haven't heard that one before, though.

Deists were also known for believing the state of nature was eternal, with no beginning or end.

Doesn't seem so...

Deists believe that a single creator god does exist, but they take their evidence from reason and logic, not the revelatory acts and miracles that form the basis of faith in many organized religions.

Deists Believe in One God Who Is Impersonal

Deists believe in one God, but not on the basis of faith and supernatural revelation, but on the evidence of reason.

www.learnreligions.com

They generally desire God's initial creative work to be very long ago and very far away.

So the evidence shows. Geologists in the 1600s and 1700s assumed a young Earth, and only reluctantly changed their ideas after the evidence showed them that reality was incompatible with that assumption.

 

[lifepsyop]

So the evidence shows. Geologists in the 1600s and 1700s assumed a young Earth, and only reluctantly changed their ideas after the evidence showed them that reality was incompatible with that assumption.

Oh, what evidence was that? How many of their examples of geologic evidence still hold up today?

I would argue they were far more influenced by the revolutionary spirit of the age, the "Age of Reason", and the embracing of Enlightenment Deism.

 

[The Barbarian]

Oh, what evidence was that?

Geologic column. Signs of widespresd gradual change interspersed with more limited catastrophic things like vulcanism and floods. Miles-deep deposits showing gradual deposition. Stuff like that.

How many of their examples of geologic evidence still hold up today?

Pretty much all of it. The entire geologic column actually exists in several locations in spite of erosion. Murchison, Sedgewick and other Christian geologists abandoned catastrophism when the evidence showed that it could not account for the majority of geologic evidence.

By the 1850's, Christian men of science overwhelmingly believed Earth was extremely old. In the decades before Darwin, the failure of a literal interpretation of Genesis to account for earth history helped create new rifts in Christian philosophy. In the spirit of Augustine, many Christians adopted the view that geology could help guide reinterpreting biblical stories. Others, without a background in natural philosophy or geology, came to be known as scriptural geologists. They either considered a literal interpretation of the Bible paramount and geology mistaken or embraced the idea that God just made the world look old, hiding fossils in rocks back at the initial Creation. In this split lay the roots of modern creationism.

Amazon.com

 

[lifepsyop]

Geologic column. Signs of widespresd gradual change interspersed with more limited catastrophic things like vulcanism and floods. Miles-deep deposits showing gradual deposition. Stuff like that.

Pretty much all of it. The entire geologic column actually exists in several locations in spite of erosion. Murchison, Sedgewick and other Christian geologists abandoned catastrophism when the evidence showed that it could not account for the majority of geologic evidence.

Yea, not sure about that. I think it's more likely they were being influenced by naturalist philosophy / enlightenment deism, which was becoming very popular by the 17th and 18th centuries, and began bringing those assumptions into the field with them.

Even modern geology today admits those early geologists were presupposing gradualism into the rocks, gradualism that was not necessarily there.


Modern geologists do not apply uniformitarianism in the same way as Lyell. They question if rates of processes were uniform through time and only those values measured during the history of geology are to be accepted.[43] The present may not be a long enough key to penetrating the deep lock of the past.[44] Geologic processes may have been active at different rates in the past that humans have not observed. "By force of popularity, uniformity of rate has persisted to our present day. For more than a century, Lyell's rhetoric conflating axiom with hypotheses has descended in unmodified form. Many geologists have been stifled by the belief that proper methodology includes an a priori commitment to gradual change, and by a preference for explaining large-scale phenomena as the concatenation of innumerable tiny changes."

Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yea, not sure about that. I think it's more likely they were being influenced by naturalist philosophy / enlightenment deism, which was becoming very popular by the 17th and 18th centuries, and began bringing those assumptions into the field with them.

Even modern geology today admits those early geologists were presupposing gradualism into the rocks, gradualism that was not necessarily there.


Modern geologists do not apply uniformitarianism in the same way as Lyell. They question if rates of processes were uniform through time and only those values measured during the history of geology are to be accepted.[43] The present may not be a long enough key to penetrating the deep lock of the past.[44] Geologic processes may have been active at different rates in the past that humans have not observed. "By force of popularity, uniformity of rate has persisted to our present day. For more than a century, Lyell's rhetoric conflating axiom with hypotheses has descended in unmodified form. Many geologists have been stifled by the belief that proper methodology includes an a priori commitment to gradual change, and by a preference for explaining large-scale phenomena as the concatenation of innumerable tiny changes."

Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's slightly pricey, but you might pick up a copy of The Bible, Rocks and Time by Davis A. Young & Ralph F. Stearley. I think they do a good job of shoring up and explaining the classifications which go into Geological Science and how they more or less know they can rely on the Geologic Column as a scientific model.