Theistic evolution, the flood and the nephillim

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

Most people give their own personal opinions about Dr. Hovind so I'm giving mine.

 

[gluadys]

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Same angels:

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Thus, the same issue. No apparent metaphor here.

Similar, indirect reference:

Mat 24:38
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

Excuse me for being dense, but I don't see any reference to any supposed sexual intercourse between angels and humans in any one of these references.

Some angels "kept not their first estate but left their habitation" does not imply any co-habitation with humans to me. That they left their place by the throne of God and rebelled against him would be a sufficient reason for this verse.

The "strange flesh" in reference to Sodom obviously (IMO) refers to their homosexual but entirely human practices. After all, they didn't know the young men visiting Lot were really angels; they thought they were desirable young men.

That the everlasting fire was prepared for the devil and his angels again says nothing about any particular sin of theirs over and above their rebellion against God. In and of itself it says nothing about sexual liaisons.

And the final quote from Matthew as far as I can see makes no reference to angels at all and simply refers to the tendency of humans to ignore warnings of coming destruction and carry on with every day activities.

So where does this idea come from that angels interbred with humans?

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

I do study under other scientists such as Dr. Ray Rempt- Physicist
Dr. Steve Wolfe - Geologist
Dr. Donald Chittick - Physical Chemist

I'm sorry that I may not have been like other people to actually disagree with him in science. I have read a long commentary with Dr. Hovind and AIG or whatever the abbrev. is. That's the Creation inistitute in Australia. They do disaggree with him in several areas but they do agree in a few ones. Also they don't see him as a likely candidate on the Creation/Evolution debate. But He did serve God and won many souls. I'm sorry that your friends left God, but we all make choices so it really goes to the individual's decision whether he is influenced or not.

 

[shernren]

Well this thread isn't about Dr. Hovind, it's about a specific issue a specific person is facing with regards to how to interpret the Bible, so shall we get back on track?

To Starforsaken: How're things going? Anything more to ask?

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

Sorry man. But I had to get that out. Sorry. Let's continue with the original thread.

 

[thenewageriseth]

I am a creationist (or was), but after taking a semester of geology and archeology in college I dont know what I believe; if anything Id say theistic evolution. But one of the major things that is really hurting me right now is the whole flood/nephillim thing. When I was convinced the earth was only 6000 years old, the world was globally flooded, adam and eve did exist, noah did exist; this problem did not arise.

But during the course of the semester I have seen sufficient evidence (i think) that shows me the earth is old and that a global flood could not have occured. For others out there who share this view, how do you deal with the idea of the nephillim, the watchers. Matthew clearly states that these angellic/demonic beings mated with humans, and part of the reason "the world" was flooded was to eradicate this bastardization. If there was no flood was there also no nephillim? Are people not said to have lived hundreds of years back then? I forget the kings name but was he not said to have been 13 feet tall, goliathe also incredibly tall?

Anyway, hope this came out sounding coherent, any responses, refutations are welcome.

I would have to say, while I believe in theistic evolution, I do not believe in the existence of Nephilim beings. Sounds WAY too surreal. It sounds like a children's tale or something of that nature. About the flood? Yes, no, maybe so...
I was listening to this guest named Steven Quayle and he was talking about how giants co-existed with humans back then and stuff. It was on CoasttoCoastAM, btw. A few weeks ago...;;
www.coasttocoastam.com

He also talked about a cannibalistic giant living somewhere in Afghanistan-in TODAY'S world...I had heard that story before-so if this is all true...then...there is a loving God?

But I say that I don't believe in Nephilim, because I don't think it is possible for angels to manifest into humans-cuz they're spirits-as much as I'd like to-and it conflicts with what I believe and what I also believe is that there cannot be a loving God, letting all these things go on in the world-and the prophecies that are supposed to back up the reason why the world is the way it is, because of humans, is not enough for me. I need more truth and knowledge.

So, yeah I'm struggling BIG TIME with the validity of the whole Bible. Most parts make no sense to me.

 

[Deamiter]

I do study under other scientists such as Dr. Ray Rempt- Physicist
Dr. Steve Wolfe - Geologist
Dr. Donald Chittick - Physical Chemist

Quite misleading. I can be certain that you do not "study under" these people because they do not teach in the same place. Furthermore, they are all evangelists and as far as I can tell, they've all made their money solely from book/video sales and presentations (for decades), not from research. Though they have degrees, it's misleading to call them "physicist" or "geologist" since they don't work in that field!

Yeah, I read books by MANY authors (including Dr. Rempt) but I'd be lying to say that I've STUDIED under them!

..
As gluadys said, I too find no evidence that angels and humans ever had sex. The Bible is not always clear in making transitions ESPECIALLY when translated. Translating Greek and Hebrew is much more informative to close study. It's especially useful when you are willing to look closely into the language with word studies.

Again, these direct translations are horrible at showing where the author makes transitions. There are MANY passages that are just plain weird to me until I read a commentary by somebody fluent in the language who can explain the nuances of the passage to an English speaker like me.

Anyway, I'll stop pontificating, but as gluadys said, there's little even in these verses to suggest that angels had sex with humans.

 

[Deamiter]

I was listening to this guest named Steven Quayle and he was talking about how giants co-existed with humans back then and stuff. It was on CoasttoCoastAM, btw. A few weeks ago...;;

CoasttoCoastAM is rather famous for its airing conspiracies and fringe ideas. I've always found it fascinating, but it's important to take this type of source with a good dose of skepticism.

He also talked about a cannibalistic giant living somewhere in Afghanistan-in TODAY'S world...I had heard that story before-so if this is all true...then...there is a loving God?

Again, with the skepticism. There are many 'giants' in the world, usually due to a mutation that keeps the body producing growth hormones well past puberty. Cannibalism is also not uncommon, especially in less developed countries. I'm not well-studied in terms of Afghanistan, but his actions are probably either cultural or psychological (or a mixture of both) and his size is probably genetic.

I guess your main point, though, is how could God create and/or tolerate a world with pain and suffering. It's a very common question that MANY theologians have wrestled with. Basically I believe that evil is an inevitable result of our God-given free will. Since we have the opportunity to freely choose, people will often choose sin. To me, this is extremely loving since it allows us to CHOOSE a loving relationship with God (and others) rather than acting as robots.

But I say that I don't believe in Nephilim, because I don't think it is possible for angels to manifest into humans-cuz they're spirits-as much as I'd like to-and it conflicts with what I believe and what I also believe is that there cannot be a loving God, letting all these things go on in the world-and the prophecies that are supposed to back up the reason why the world is the way it is, because of humans, is not enough for me. I need more truth and knowledge.

As an analogy, a parent cannot force a child to act responsibly, and to try would involve taking all responsibility away from the child. We learn much more from our mistakes than from direct instruction. It is incredibly loving (in my opinion) for God to allow us to make mistakes, to sin, and to cause others to suffer. Not because of what we do, but because it allows us to freely choose to love others and follow the teaching of God and the Bible.

So, yeah I'm struggling BIG TIME with the validity of the whole Bible. Most parts make no sense to me.

You and every other Christian! There's no FAQ list for life and the Bible is set in many different cultures (that no longer exist) and written by many authors with extremely different points of view!

I'd particularly suggest reading some of the non-fiction works of C.S. Lewis. He writes from a very down-to-earth point of view, and discusses many of the issues you've been asking about.

 

[busterdog]

Excuse me for being dense, but I don't see any reference to any supposed sexual intercourse between angels and humans in any one of these references.

Some angels "kept not their first estate but left their habitation" does not imply any co-habitation with humans to me. That they left their place by the throne of God and rebelled against him would be a sufficient reason for this verse.

The "strange flesh" in reference to Sodom obviously (IMO) refers to their homosexual but entirely human practices. After all, they didn't know the young men visiting Lot were really angels; they thought they were desirable young men.

That the everlasting fire was prepared for the devil and his angels again says nothing about any particular sin of theirs over and above their rebellion against God. In and of itself it says nothing about sexual liaisons.

And the final quote from Matthew as far as I can see makes no reference to angels at all and simply refers to the tendency of humans to ignore warnings of coming destruction and carry on with every day activities.

So where does this idea come from that angels interbred with humans?

The two verses in Jude are a single sentence linked by a common theme: illicit sex.

As for Matthew, I think the argument is a good one, but admittedly not as clear as the argument from Jude. I was trying to follow the OP.

The flood of Noah is one that Chuck Missler (khouse.org) has taught for a long time. Again Jude is much clearer on this point that Matthew. But, the corrupt seed issue from Genesis was at "the time of Noah." Missler himself refers to this as a suspicion, not doctrine. He even suggests an application with the mixed clay and iron of Daniel.

I would like to hear more from the person who started this thread.

I think the essential point is that there is more here than spiritualized issues. There is literal cosmic wierdness happening, which is not completely consistent with a TE world-view.

Jude makes this supernatural world view extremely clear.

 

[busterdog]

Let me start with this disclaimer: I'm spit-ballin' here.

I may not be the best person to attempt an answer to these questions. WRT #1, my perception of what God intends for us now is vastly more important than what he intends for us later. WRT #2, I'm not sure what Israel and God's purposes for Israel have to do with God's purposes for me.

WRT #1, I don't attempt to understand what is to be. I accept that Paul and John wrote according to their understanding. What the Gospel writers report of Jesus, I believe that Jesus primarily promises a place -- and doesn't promise much more than this.

For example, I don't get hung up on Paul's apparent fascination with and insistence on a physical ressurection for us. It may be, it may not be. The primary thing I derive from Jesus, Paul, and John on this subject is that God is trustworthy and has made provision. All of end-times stuff says one thing coherently -- that God wins, and therefore, we win. These scriptures exhort me to trust God. I don't care if I am in physical form or not (though, I might trust that Paul was speaking through the Spirit).

WRT #2, again my attitude is one of trusting God. Jesus' parables, IMHO, don't give a clear picture of what will happen to Israel. They do show that in some sense they are part of the equation. In the sense that the Holy Spirit speaks through varioius scriptures saying that through them all the nations will be blessed and that whoever blesses them will be blessed and whoso curses them will be cursed, then I guard my attitude about Israel and respect who they are. But, again, for me, it is in God's hands. I am not particularly interested in how it will work out -- tho' I do my part in praying for the peace of Jerusalem, etc.

So, what AM I interested in? (Rhetorical! ) For me, all of scripture -- from Adam and Eve on -- is about God's loving pursuit of us, of me, of you. As practical life activities, I am interested in fostering within myself (and in others as a part of ministry) an attitude that allows God to transform me in the image of his Son. As a matter of practice, HOW am I loving my neighbor? If pursuit of the truth of certain subject matter hinders my ability to love, then I need to let it go.

The question of tools is harder. Some of that is temperament. IOW, because of my bent, I am tempted to answer, "through intellect." But we are all different.

The commonality is in the Holy Spirit. Pardon me if I border on heresy here, but if the Holy Spirit isn't guiding me then the Bible is useless as a tool for my transformation. If, OTOH, the Holy Spirit is guiding me, then all things become tools for my transformation.

I summary, I am not sure I can answer the specific questions answered in this context, because for me answering them doesn't pertain to my growth -- for now, at any rate. In terms of generality, our primary tool is openess to the Holy Spirit whom we expect may use any tool to transform us.

HTH

Romans 10 has a rather interesting view of essential knowledge: that if you confess Jesus is Lord and believe He rose from the dead, you will be saved. That leaves out an awful lot of territory and a lot of knowledge that others might consider essential for sozo -- salvation, restoration, etc.

To me this suggest that God has a view of essentials in some ways much like yours. It would appear that God understands the problem of knowing and knowing what is essential. The knowledge is really just a couple of points on a graph papers: X: the guy named Jesus, Y: the dead guy who lives; Z: he is Lord.

If you as creator really wanted to recover your own back out of this fallen world so full of deception, your desire could be measured by the degree of simplicity with which you design the solution to an intellect which must come to radical doubt about every truth, if reason is in all cases followed to its extreme. It is just so simple.

But that also leaves lots of room to look at other information as non-essential. I think this is part of the point of what you are saying. If the essentials are so radically simplified, it would also seem that there is room to wonder at what might be and how exactly God might have done what he did.

Reserving that ability to be surprised by the truth, giving God that wide berth seems to be fully in line with how the essentials of salvation are measured. Apparently God did not intend to be exhaustive in giving out knowledge.

That being said, there is way to blessing and victory that Scripture does define. This is not salvation essentials. But, the Word is a sword, not just an object of contemplation. There are things to be done and a way to do them. One must take a position to do that work. And of course, even when you do a bad job, God can use it. But, for our blessing, God made the roadmap pretty paricular. At some point, one must "invest" in this knowledge and not simply bury it. Seems to me there are two kinds of knowledge: the knowledge by which we enter his rest, which you have articulated and the knowledge by which we follow the one who saved us.

 

[vine8787]

I have not found a part of the bible which contradicts hard evidence. I love science, specifically the physical sciences and I may become a physicis. The more I study, the more I see every road pointing to the word's uncanny accuracy. There is sufficient evidence to suggest a flood, from soil layers to mixed fossils to erosion of ancient establishments. Is there anything biblical that has been refuted?

 

[gluadys]

I have not found a part of the bible which contradicts hard evidence. I love science, specifically the physical sciences and I may become a physicis. The more I study, the more I see every road pointing to the word's uncanny accuracy. There is sufficient evidence to suggest a flood, from soil layers to mixed fossils to erosion of ancient establishments. Is there anything biblical that has been refuted?

Since the bible does not really specify an age of the earth or a method of creation (those are matters of interpretation, not givens of the text), it is difficult to say anything biblical has been refuted.

Even "a flood" has not been refuted if you are open to the flood story being a memory of a devastating local/regional flood which appeared to those experiencing it to have destroyed their whole world--which it likely did.

But a literal global flood has been decisively refuted for over 200 years, largely by the work of Christian geologists who looked for the evidence.

I don't know what you mean by "mixed fossils" but the fossil record is most certainly at odds with a single global flood in any era. I suggest you read more on actual geology to see why it cannot be explained by a single flood event.

 

[gluadys]

The two verses in Jude are a single sentence linked by a common theme: illicit sex.

Unless you are an expert in NT Greek, you can't confirm it is a single sentence since punctuation is not part of the original text. The beginnings and ends of sentences were not marked in the original manuscripts and for the most part, sentence divisions and other punctuation was added by later hands for clarification. Often translators differ on what punctuation is appropriate and where sentence breaks should occur.

I would also say that the common theme is not illicit sex, or even sex at all, but breaking from the natural order. The one example of sex is homosexuality, and while the bible presents adultery and fornication and prostitution as illicit, only homosexuality is presented as unnatural.

Many modern translations describe the angels leaving their "first estate" and leaving their proper sphere of authority. This fits with the meaning of "estate" in the KJV era, which referred to social position as much as to land. In Europe three estates were commonly recognized: clergy, nobility and commoner. Nobility were distinguished from commoners by possession of land, so "estate" referred to having both land and a social position of power and authority under the God and the king. The owner of the land also had responsibility to govern and defend it and provide courts of justice within his domain.

It could well be in analogy to this meaning of "estate" that the term is used of the angels, for they would have power and authority under God which those who rebelled would lose.

So the common theme is not so much illicit sex as contravention of the appropriate order of creation.

But, the corrupt seed issue from Genesis was at "the time of Noah." Missler himself refers to this as a suspicion, not doctrine.

Well, I am glad to see he says it is not doctrine. I don't even see a suspicion of "corrupt seed". I don't even have any idea what such a concept would mean.

There is literal cosmic wierdness happening, which is not completely consistent with a TE world-view. Jude makes this supernatural world view extremely clear.

I don't see what one has to do with the other. "Cosmic weirdness" may or may not be actual, but I think TE is as open to the possibility as any other pov. It certainly does not deny a spiritual world view.

 

[busterdog]

Unless you are an expert in NT Greek, you can't confirm it is a single sentence since punctuation is not part of the original text. The beginnings and ends of sentences were not marked in the original manuscripts and for the most part, sentence divisions and other punctuation was added by later hands for clarification. Often translators differ on what punctuation is appropriate and where sentence breaks should occur.

I would also say that the common theme is not illicit sex, or even sex at all, but breaking from the natural order. The one example of sex is homosexuality, and while the bible presents adultery and fornication and prostitution as illicit, only homosexuality is presented as unnatural.

Many modern translations describe the angels leaving their "first estate" and leaving their proper sphere of authority. This fits with the meaning of "estate" in the KJV era, which referred to social position as much as to land. In Europe three estates were commonly recognized: clergy, nobility and commoner. Nobility were distinguished from commoners by possession of land, so "estate" referred to having both land and a social position of power and authority under the God and the king. The owner of the land also had responsibility to govern and defend it and provide courts of justice within his domain.

It could well be in analogy to this meaning of "estate" that the term is used of the angels, for they would have power and authority under God which those who rebelled would lose.

So the common theme is not so much illicit sex as contravention of the appropriate order of creation.




Well, I am glad to see he says it is not doctrine. I don't even see a suspicion of "corrupt seed". I don't even have any idea what such a concept would mean.



I don't see what one has to do with the other. "Cosmic weirdness" may or may not be actual, but I think TE is as open to the possibility as any other pov. It certainly does not deny a spiritual world view.

Except TE is willing to believe in a supernatural causes, but only those that don't conflict with Darwin. Spiritual and supernatural are not exactly the same thing. As I understand the term "spiritual", correct me if I am wrong, is taken by some people to be an uncanny affection for another or the conviction that a loved one's memory "must go on."

Well, would the giants born to woman who seemed to have been appreciated by angels represent "corruption?" Was bearing children to the "sons of God" not corruption?

Lets ask it this way. Is there any logic to the idea that illicit sex links the two phrases? Just after the angels verse is a reference to "defiling the flesh". Does that mean following a bad governor only? Well, maybe in New Jersey. But, I don't think that's what they had in mind. Obviously the modern translations don't like dealing with many perjorative associations with fleshly desire. You will note Paul's reference to the same word as "habitation", oketerion, refers to the house with which we are clothed, meaning the flesh.

If TE is willing to find this point at least arguable, that the genetic pool of men was corrupted by illicit sex with angels, then I would have an easier time accepting the proposition that TE is really open to spiritual things. Understand me, please. Being involved in truly spiritual (as John uses "spirit") things is one thing. I don't deny that TE people here are. But, this form of argument that doesn't even see the case for corruption of the race by angels is anything but "open" to spiritual things. It seems like you suggest the idea is preposterous. In response, I am incredulous.

 

[busterdog]

Quote:
Originally Posted by vine8787
I have not found a part of the bible which contradicts hard evidence. I love science, specifically the physical sciences and I may become a physicis. The more I study, the more I see every road pointing to the word's uncanny accuracy. There is sufficient evidence to suggest a flood, from soil layers to mixed fossils to erosion of ancient establishments. Is there anything biblical that has been refuted?

What you will find is lots people talking past one another and lots of selective arguing. The more you hear it from both sides the more you wonder whether God wanted people to bother and needed a six day creation just to make as easy as possible to talk about.

The refutation is hotly contested. There is lots of science on both sides and some YEC scientists have been appropriately taken to task. But, as a science, YEC is relatively young. The past 150 years of orthodox science has been proven wrong time and time again on fundamental points. What orthodox science wants to do is enter the debate on its leading edge, dismiss the past lapses and ask us to simply accept the lates view of how things are.

Here are a few warning bells: "conclusive", "without a doubt" and "consensus". Handle with care those proponents who use them. Words like "fairly tale" and "ignorance" when used by a detractor also brings into question how much time you want to give to that view.

Put the Word first in your studies and devotion. The interpretations will take care of themselves. As in James, wisdom is a gift to those who earnestly desire it and seek it in faith. It does not come by brilliance or hard study.

Since the bible does not really specify an age of the earth or a method of creation (those are matters of interpretation, not givens of the text), it is difficult to say anything biblical has been refuted.

Even "a flood" has not been refuted if you are open to the flood story being a memory of a devastating local/regional flood which appeared to those experiencing it to have destroyed their whole world--which it likely did.

But a literal global flood has been decisively refuted for over 200 years, largely by the work of Christian geologists who looked for the evidence.

I don't know what you mean by "mixed fossils" but the fossil record is most certainly at odds with a single global flood in any era. I suggest you read more on actual geology to see why it cannot be explained by a single flood event.

"Decisively refuted" means those have decided on it believe in it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Romans 10 has a rather interesting view of essential knowledge: that if you confess Jesus is Lord and believe He rose from the dead, you will be saved. That leaves out an awful lot of territory and a lot of knowledge that others might consider essential for sozo -- salvation, restoration, etc.

To me this suggest that God has a view of essentials in some ways much like yours. It would appear that God understands the problem of knowing and knowing what is essential. The knowledge is really just a couple of points on a graph papers: X: the guy named Jesus, Y: the dead guy who lives; Z: he is Lord.

If you as creator really wanted to recover your own back out of this fallen world so full of deception, your desire could be measured by the degree of simplicity with which you design the solution to an intellect which must come to radical doubt about every truth, if reason is in all cases followed to its extreme. It is just so simple.

But that also leaves lots of room to look at other information as non-essential. I think this is part of the point of what you are saying. If the essentials are so radically simplified, it would also seem that there is room to wonder at what might be and how exactly God might have done what he did.

Reserving that ability to be surprised by the truth, giving God that wide berth seems to be fully in line with how the essentials of salvation are measured. Apparently God did not intend to be exhaustive in giving out knowledge.

That being said, there is way to blessing and victory that Scripture does define. This is not salvation essentials. But, the Word is a sword, not just an object of contemplation. There are things to be done and a way to do them. One must take a position to do that work. And of course, even when you do a bad job, God can use it. But, for our blessing, God made the roadmap pretty paricular. At some point, one must "invest" in this knowledge and not simply bury it. Seems to me there are two kinds of knowledge: the knowledge by which we enter his rest, which you have articulated and the knowledge by which we follow the one who saved us.

I think I essentially agree with your points and your re-articulation of mine.

However, in terms of a way of blessing, I would suggest that there are two strata of "ways to blessing". One would be general. The other particular. For example, loving your neighbor would be general. How to love your particular neighbor in your particular situation is ... well ... particular. Another, perhaps, is smoking. Growing up, I was more-or-less taught that smoking was sinful and that anyone who became a Christian would give it up ... pretty much within a year or so of the salvation event -- else, one should suspect that that person was not really saved. Having grown up some what (I hope) and having begun to understand grace (I hope), it is my sincere belief that God deals with each of us in our own way. In this example, perhaps smoking is far down the list because God would rather have that person deal with issues of gossip, etc.

In view of this, humilty is an essential facet of how we approach others and their walk with God.

 

[shernren]

Except TE is willing to believe in a supernatural causes, but only those that don't conflict with Darwin.

Oh, I'm perfectly willing to believe in a supernatural cause that conflicts with Darwin. I just don't see any evidence of such forces yet.

 

[busterdog]

I think I essentially agree with your points and your re-articulation of mine.

However, in terms of a way of blessing, I would suggest that there are two strata of "ways to blessing". One would be general. The other particular. For example, loving your neighbor would be general. How to love your particular neighbor in your particular situation is ... well ... particular. Another, perhaps, is smoking. Growing up, I was more-or-less taught that smoking was sinful and that anyone who became a Christian would give it up ... pretty much within a year or so of the salvation event -- else, one should suspect that that person was not really saved. Having grown up some what (I hope) and having begun to understand grace (I hope), it is my sincere belief that God deals with each of us in our own way. In this example, perhaps smoking is far down the list because God would rather have that person deal with issues of gossip, etc.

In view of this, humilty is an essential facet of how we approach others and their walk with God.

As for the last point, not to mention "fear of the Lord".

Too bad you don't have a reputation icon, since I appreciate the post.

 

[busterdog]

Oh, I'm perfectly willing to believe in a supernatural cause that conflicts with Darwin. I just don't see any evidence of such forces yet.

Yes, I know.

And as you know, I am cavalier, if not contemptuous, of observable reality.

I kind of see a little more clearly your view of the supernatural, that it must be backed by particular evidence of the particular event. That makes the resurrection a different category than the six days. That would give you the luxury of moving the goal posts every time you have a problem (as I define the problem to fit my defense of the opposing end zone). That is to say, it would not be enough for the great magician, by causing an elephant to disappear, to prove himself capable of pulling six rabbits in a row out of the hat. He must also have particular proof of each rabbit

I just don't see how a view of the supernatural should require naturalistic proof in all cases in which the power operates.

 

[Smidlee]

Oh, I'm perfectly willing to believe in a supernatural cause that conflicts with Darwin. I just don't see any evidence of such forces yet.

Darwinism deals with the supernatural. Retiles growing boobs, dinos growing wings and feathers, a two chamber heart creature eventually through supernatural-selection transforms into a three then four chamber heart creatures sounds very supernatural to me. Supernatural giving nature (or a natural object) more credit than due. As busterdog point out there's a difference between that which is spiritual to that which is supernatural.