Thought about something Specific

[Greg1234]

That still leaves open the question of whether "no evidence of the supernatural" is equivalent to "no evidence of God". This seems to be one of the dividing lines between those who dispute science and those who do not.

Nope. As just given, it is smply the rejection of life comng from God by the Christian Darwinist, and reaffirmation of the reducibility of life to matter. In another context, in another land, n another time, this would be called materialism. He could have said God or supernatural. You're attempting to split hairs here.

 

[Greg1234]

No, Greg, it doesn't contradict Darwinism. Darwinism is concerned about the physical part of humans and what is a result of the physical -- such as our intelligence.

Darwin had no trouble with a concept of "soul" or "spirit" and evolution:

"He who believes in the advancement of man from some low organised form, will naturally ask how does this bear on the belief in the immortality of the soul. The barbarous races of man, as Sir J. Lubbock has shewn, possess no clear belief of this kind; but arguments derived from the primeval beliefs of savages are, as we have just seen, of little or no avail. Few persons feel any anxiety from the impossibility of determining at what precise period in the development of the individual, from the first trace of a minute germinal vesicle, man becomes an immortal being; and there is no greater cause for anxiety because the period cannot possibly be determined in the gradually ascending organic scale." Literature.org - The Online Literature Library The Descent of Man

If Darwin was mindful of the governance at work then he would not have cast his theory.

 

[gluadys]

Nope. As just given, it is smply the rejection of life comng from God by the Christian Darwinist, and reaffirmation of the reducibility of life to matter. In another context, in another land, n another time, this would be called materialism. He could have said God or supernatural. You're attempting to split hairs here.

So, do you think God's methods are always supernatural?

 

[lucaspa]

If Darwin was mindful of the governance at work then he would not have cast his theory.

Christians view "governance" differently than you do. You seem to equate "governance" with "miracle".

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise. (that is in the Fontispiece of Origin of Species, so Darwin was aware of it)

"Governance" is just as much something that happens regularly as something that happens by "miracle".

 

[lucaspa]

As just given, it is smply the rejection of life comng from God by the Christian Darwinist, and reaffirmation of the reducibility of life to matter. In another context, in another land, n another time, this would be called materialism.

Even if life comes from "matter" by chenical reactions, how is that not "coming from God"? In order to "come from God", does something have to happen by miracle?

Your life can be reduced to matter. None of us thinks we were miraculously made but instead came materially from fertilization of ovum by a sperm, and then the series of material steps that are embryonic development.

The flaw here is thinking that "materialism" = without God.

 

[Greg1234]

Christians view "governance" differently than you do. You seem to equate "governance" with "miracle".

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise. (that is in the Fontispiece of Origin of Species, so Darwin was aware of it)

"Governance" is just as much something that happens regularly as something that happens by "miracle".

Governance is laws in place.

Your life can be reduced to matter. None of us thinks we were miraculously made but instead came materially from fertilization of ovum by a sperm, and then the series of material steps that are embryonic development.

That's not reduction. That's the furthest materialism allows and the furthest material instrumentation can investigate. Though, hardly the cessation of knowledge obtained.

The flaw here is thinking that "materialism" = without God.

That's not a flaw. Materialism is anti-God.

 

[Greg1234]

So, do you think God's methods are always supernatural?

Always.

 

[gluadys]

So, do you think God's methods are always supernatural?

Always.

So do you think your conception was miraculous?

Or do you think God had nothing to do with bringing you into being?

 

[Greg1234]

So do you think your conception was miraculous?

Or do you think God had nothing to do with bringing you into being?

The laws in place govern the happenings of man as well as other aspects of the phenomenal world. There is not one giant law at tbat level and man is amenable to that which governs him. As given, "all flesh is not the same." Miracles are a fulfillment of the law past the point of passivity whereby the command of the supernatural is on a fuller display. Thus deemed miraculous due to occurrences relative to it. Conception is not fully tasked to DNA and the information contained within but works in accord with other facets of the complete man to bring about birth and upkeep.

 

[gluadys]

Conception is not fully tasked to DNA and the information contained within but works in accord with other facets of the complete man to bring about birth and upkeep.

I wouldn't quarrel with this, but it doesn't answer my question. Are you saying that every human conception involves a miracle?

 

[lucaspa]

Governance is laws in place.

Then evolution is governance! Thank you for admitting it.

That's not reduction. That's the furthest materialism allows and the furthest material instrumentation can investigate. Though, hardly the cessation of knowledge obtained.

Your existence is due to the material process of sex, embryonic development, and birth. Where is the "miracle" in that process?

Lucaspa: The flaw here is thinking that "materialism" = without God.

That's not a flaw. Materialism is anti-God.

You didn't really address what I said. Being "material" or "natural" is not without God, is it? Oops, you do think that material is without God:

Gluadys: So, do you think God's methods are always supernatural?

Always.

Congratulations! Here you just denied a basic belief of Christianity. I suggest you look up "secondary cause". You also denied what you said above: "governance is laws in place". Those "laws" are materialistic or natural laws, aren't they? Like gravity. By saying that God's methods are always supernatural, you deny the governance of God. So you just contradicted yourself.

Now, some materialists like Dawkins think that "materialism" is anti-God. But that doesn't mean they are right. Dawkins and those who believe as he does are simply making the same flawed thinking you are.

 

[lucaspa]

The laws in place govern the happenings of man as well as other aspects of the phenomenal world.

And here again we have God's governance. So God does work by methods other than the supernatural.

Conception is not fully tasked to DNA and the information contained within but works in accord with other facets of the complete man to bring about birth and upkeep.

Please detail for us these "other facets" and show us how they are not material.

I would agree that conception is "not fully tasked" directly to DNA, as it involves chemistry of fusion of membranes, etc. However, DNA does code for the proteins responsible for building the membranes and the other molecules participating in conception. However, I do not see "miracle" anywhere in conception or embryonic development as you have defined it: "Miracles are a fulfillment of the law past the point of passivity whereby the command of the supernatural is on a fuller display. " Where is the command of the supernatural on fuller display during conception and embryonic development?

 

[ProScribe]

Were the ancient neanderthal caveman violent and barbaric? . .

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

What if the spirit man evolves according to our understanding of Evolution? . .

Do you mean the souls of individual men? The soul does not evolve. It is created immediately with the body at conception. And because the body is the physical manifestation of the soul,it cannot have evolved from another kind of creature.

 

[Greg1234]

Were the ancient neanderthal caveman violent and barbaric? . .

Civilized

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Then evolution is governance! Thank you for admitting it.

Evolution in the sense of the theory of evolution cannot be shown to have happened,and it does not add up logically. So it is presumptuous to act like it is made to happen by God.

Your existence is due to the material process of sex, embryonic development, and birth. Where is the "miracle" in that process?

Conception is not a miracle in the proper sense,but it does indeed happen by the power of God. It is the spirit of God that gives life to natural things,not material process. It is the spirit of God that makes the processes of life happen in the first place.

You didn't really address what I said. Being "material" or "natural" is not without God, is it? Oops, you do think that material is without God:

Material or natural things does not mean the naturalistic view.

Congratulations! Here you just denied a basic belief of Christianity. I suggest you look up "secondary cause".

The fact that God makes use of natural causes does not mean that he does so in a detached,mechanical manner,as a man constructs and winds up a watch. That idea of how God works in nature through secondary causes is not part of Christian doctrine,it is a deistic idea that stems from Francis Bacon and other scientific writers of the 17th century who had a mechanistic view of how nature works,in opposition to the Scholastic view of nature and causation.

You also denied what you said above: "governance is laws in place". Those "laws" are materialistic or natural laws, aren't they? Like gravity. By saying that God's methods are always supernatural, you deny the governance of God. So you just contradicted yourself.

God doesn't govern nature by methods. He governs nature directly with his own power. The "methods" found in nature,such as reproduction,were created by God,but they do not amount to God's governance of nature.
"Laws of nature" does not mean laws created by nature itself,it means laws found in nature.

Now, some materialists like Dawkins think that "materialism" is anti-God. But that doesn't mean they are right. Dawkins and those who believe as he does are simply making the same flawed thinking you are.

You are confusing materialism with natural causes. Materialism is the view that only material or natural causes exist,or that they are sufficient for explaining all phenomena.

 

[ProScribe]

The spirit man can evolve.

 

[gluadys]

Material or natural things does not mean the naturalistic view.

I am so glad you recognize this. It is a constant confusion some people make. I have noted it especially in ID literature.

The fact that God makes use of natural causes does not mean that he does so in a detached,mechanical manner,as a man constructs and winds up a watch. That idea of how God works in nature through secondary causes is not part of Christian doctrine,it is a deistic idea that stems from Francis Bacon and other scientific writers of the 17th century who had a mechanistic view of how nature works,in opposition to the Scholastic view of nature and causation.

Exactly. This is the view that evolutionary creationists reject. I constantly see anti-evolutionary creationists who hold this is the only possible way God can relate to nature other than via direct supernatural intervention (miracle). This thinking divorces God from natural process. It promotes the idea that "natural" = "without God". No wonder anti-evolutionary creationists think that to see God in creation must be equivalent to seeing miracles in the created order. They have so bought into this mechanistic thinking that they can't see natural causes as activated by God in an ongoing organic way--not a detached, mechanistic way.

One reason I prefer evolutionary creationist thinking is that it restores this more organic view of nature and God's relation to natural process.

You are confusing materialism with natural causes. Materialism is the view that only material or natural causes exist,or that they are sufficient for explaining all phenomena.

Again, I am so glad to see you affirming the difference between natural causes and materialism/naturalism (the philosophy).

This is also the position of evolutionary creationists: the science describes natural causes, but does not demand any commitment to materialism. While science can neither affirm nor deny the existence or action of a deity, Christians can and must affirm that God is the constant upholder and sustainor of the natural processes described by science, including, of course, evolution.

(I don't think lucaspa is confused on this point though.)

 

[Greg1234]

The spirit man can evolve.

Once you include the "spirit man" it's a course away from Darwinism, you do know that right? In fact any interpretation of texts is merely the inclusion of more supernatural elements. If Gen 1 were to be seen as the spiritual creation of life then the creation and evolution of life is from the spirit into matter. It would seemingly mean that God's direct work stopped after the 6 days of creation with the creation of the spiritual portion of life or the "seeds." But I still wouldn't see Darwinism there as we are not talking about panspermia but God again. Plato was one who also regarded the "spirit man" but again matter is not the highest when "He asserted that there is realm of Forms or Ideas, which exist independently of anyone who may have thought of these ideas. Material things are then imperfect and transient reflections or instantiations of the perfect and unchanging ideas."

In the New testament you don't find Darwinism either. "When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor."

To some, the creation of the "seeds" may be the creation depicted in Genesis 1. But that seed is spiritual and mental, not physical as seen today. Within those created "seeds" are the "plants" which when sowed in matter, have the ability to manifest and create a wide variety of forms due to the inherent diversity contained therein. Like the way white light behaves when it "crosses" through a prism. Accordingly, they are created by [Lord] god, but even this is from spiritual to material, not bacteria jumping from one plane to the other.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

I am so glad you recognize this. It is a constant confusion some people make. I have noted it especially in ID literature.

I think what you are referring to is that proponents of intelligent design oppose the theory of evolution because it uses natural causes alone. I agree with them on that. It does not mean that they confuse the use of natural causes in explaining natural phenomena with a materialistic view of nature. They point is that the theory itself is materialist and that it attributes to natural causes things they cannot do,things which cannot be shown to have happened.

Exactly. This is the view that evolutionary creationists reject. I constantly see anti-evolutionary creationists who hold this is the only possible way God can relate to nature other than via direct supernatural intervention (miracle). This thinking divorces God from natural process. It promotes the idea that "natural" = "without God". No wonder anti-evolutionary creationists think that to see God in creation must be equivalent to seeing miracles in the created order. They have so bought into this mechanistic thinking that they can't see natural causes as activated by God in an ongoing organic way--not a detached, mechanistic way.

The belief in direct supernatural intervention does not divorce God from natural process. No one is suggesting that God does not use natural causes. But since God is supernatural and present everywhere to nature,his creative action is indeed direct and supernatural. On this point,theistic evolutionists are the ones who separate God from natural process. If you really believe that God works through natural processes,then be specific about it. Acknowledge that God creates species or populations through immediate,individual acts of creation,whether from dead matter or living matter or parents. If you shy away from attributing specific acts of creation to God,then you don't believe that he creates things in the way that he actually does. The direct creation of species is not a miracle,in the proper sense of the word. It does not have to do with suspension of the laws of nature,which are themselves God-given. There is nothing mechanistic about the belief in direct creation. It was the mechanistic thinkers of the 17th and 18th century that denied the miraculous and supernatural and sought to explain all natural phenomena in a mechanistic fashion.

To say that natural causes are activated by God in an ongoing,organic way is a mechanistic way of thinking,unless you mean that God himself creates and moves natural causes. But God did not make natural elements to move and create independently of his power. Natural causes have various degrees of free movement,but they are not capable of organizing themselves into organisms without the power of God's spirit.

One reason I prefer evolutionary creationist thinking is that it restores this more organic view of nature and God's relation to natural process.

What do you mean by organic? The organic view of nature is mechanistic in science,and it is falsely spiritualist in evolutionary theology.

Again, I am so glad to see you affirming the difference between natural causes and materialism/naturalism (the philosophy).

I was not referring to philosophy,but to the way nature is viewed and explained in science.

This is also the position of evolutionary creationists: the science describes natural causes, but does not demand any commitment to materialism.

Science already has a commitment to materialism. All natural phenomena are explained as if only natural causes exist. That can be just as false as saying outright that only natural causes exist.

While science can neither affirm nor deny the existence or action of a deity, Christians can and must affirm that God is the constant upholder and sustainor of the natural processes described by science, including, of course, evolution.

(I don't think lucaspa is confused on this point though.)

Science affirms that all natural phenomena can and must be explained with natural causes alone. That is a denial of God's power in nature.

Christians are not obliged to believe everything that natural science claims about natural processes,and they are certainly not obliged to believe in the theory of evolution,since it cannot be shown to be true.