Why is God needed in TE?

[AV1611VET]

Sounds like a good answer to the OP too.

No --- my tag line --- SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.

 

[Assyrian]

It did, and discovered geology.

 

[juvenissun]

The counter question that comes to mind for me is: "Why is science needed in YEC?"

There is a big difference.

YEC does NOT need science. But science implies YEC. We are curious creatures (praise the Lord). To me, just "believe" in YEC is not enough. I want to see hints. Science+Scripture gives me a whole bunch of them.

As for evolution and God, I will address it in another post.

 

[juvenissun]

If someone comes to accept the theory of evolution, and as a result rejects God, is it really evolution that is to blame?

That is a good point. And the answer is "likely" (means statistically significant, to the least).

One apparent evidence: If you asked 100 atheists on convincing reasons of not to believe, I would think that "the fact of evolution" would be one of the major reasons in at least 80% of the answers. I think evolution is not likely the top reason. But it is certainly one that gives a strong support to their top reason, i.e. a strong reason to harden their heart. I could not imagine there is another reason to support the disbelief as strong as the idea of evolution.

But, this is not the point of interest in this thread. I am asking the question to TE people

 

[juvenissun]

Why in the world would a Christian Obstetrician think that the having a baby needs the intervention of God? What would happen if God does not intervene? I think Christian faith and the idea of obstetrics, genetics and sex education are fundamentally incompatible. The bible says God knit me together in my mother's womb Psalm 139:13.

Why in the world would a Christian Meteorologist think that rain needs the intervention of God? What would happen if God does not intervene? I think Christian faith and the idea of meteorology are fundamentally incompatible. Jesus said ...so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust Matt 5:45. Jesus tells us God sends rain, how can we claim to follow Jesus when meteorology has no place of God?

And speaking of God making the sun rise... The traditional view of the church was that God sent his angels to push the celestial spheres through the heavens. It may have been pagan Greek astronomy, but at least it recognised God was responsible for moving the sun, moon and stars around the earth. Why in the world would a Christian Astronomer think the rotation of the earth and planetary orbits need the intervention of God? What would happen if God does not intervene? I think Christian faith and the idea of modern astronomy are fundamentally incompatible. [/]

Distraction, distraction.

Evolution is about the appearance of new life form. It is not about general physical/chemical processes. God creates physics laws. Then God takes His hands off them. The processes in your examples do not need God.

Unless you are suggesting that God does the same to evolution. If so, you did answer the question of OP. It said: the process (not the origin) of evolution DOES NOT NEED God.

 

[huldah153]

I dislike the term 'Theistic Evolutionist'. It's not much different than Theistic Gravitationalist, or Theistic Spherical Earthist.

I've only known one person who believes that God intervenes during Evolution. She doesn't believe that we arrived here by natural selection, but instead through God's manipulation of DNA blueprints. This is similar to Michael Behe's belief that humans are God-mutated apes.

 

[Mallon]

That is a good point. And the answer is "likely" (means statistically significant, to the least).

One apparent evidence: If you asked 100 atheists on convincing reasons of not to believe, I would think that "the fact of evolution" would be one of the major reasons in at least 80% of the answers. I think evolution is not likely the top reason. But it is certainly one that gives a strong support to their top reason, i.e. a strong reason to harden their heart. I could not imagine there is another reason to support the disbelief as strong as the idea of evolution.

But, this is not the point of interest in this thread. I am asking the question to TE people

With all due respect, juvie, these are just empty words. You like to speak of statistical significance and toss around percentages, but when you have no data whatsoever to back up your assertions, and instead use words like "I would think that...", you really don't come across as very convincing. I can just as easily say you're 98.794% likely to be wrong. It means nothing.
Having said that, even if many atheists were to cite evolution as a means of disproving God, it only goes to further the point I made earlier. Like many neocreationists, many atheists are also prone to thinking that they must either chose between mainstream science and faith; that the Bible is either scientifically accurate or it cannot be trusted at all. This is the one deep-seeded preconviction that unites neocreationists and atheists alike. And it's wrong. Whether Christians fall away from God because of evolutionary biology or Big Bang astronomy or behavioural psychology is besides the point. The problem goes much deeper than that. The problem, again, is that both fundamentalist neocreationists and atheists buy into the rediculous idea that Christianity hinges on the scientific veracity of Genesis, rather than upon the saving grace of Christ. I'm 99.872% certain this is true.

 

[Assyrian]

Technically my examples were were physical (meteorology and planetary motion) and biological (having children). Apparently you are all right with physical, chemical or biological processes as long as they don't include evolution. Just to be clear.

Distraction, distraction.

Evolution is about the appearance of new life form. It is not about general physical/chemical processes. God creates physics laws. Then God takes His hands off them. The processes in your examples do not need God.

Unless you are suggesting that God does the same to evolution. If so, you did answer the question of OP. It said: the process (not the origin) of evolution DOES NOT NEED God.

How is it a distraction? It shows your view of how God would relate to evolution bears no relationship to any other area of Creation. But you answer is very revealing. In abandoning the traditional understanding of God and creation, your view of physical and chemical processes is what is known as deism. God created them and left them alone. Because God has been banished from you view of the working of the universe, you cannot bear the though of God being banished from life too, so you reject evolution. But the problem is not evolution but the Creationist deism which says the only alternative to miraculous intervention is a God limited to winding up the spring and letting the universe run. This is not the traditional Christian view of God and Creation.

Of course, as a Christian and a child of God you cannot live consistently by this deist philosophy. If you have ever thanked God for a beautiful day or prayed for rain when the fields are parched, if you ever ever praised God for the birth of a beautiful healthy child, or thanked him for the food on your plate, you share with TEs and the church throughout history the real understanding, in your heart at least, of God at work in his Creation.

Incidentally you only answered half my post.

 

[juvenissun]

Technically my examples were were physical (meteorology and planetary motion) and biological (having children). Apparently you are all right with physical, chemical or biological processes as long as they don't include evolution. Just to be clear.

How is it a distraction? It shows your view of how God would relate to evolution bears no relationship to any other area of Creation. But you answer is very revealing. In abandoning the traditional understanding of God and creation, your view of physical and chemical processes is what is known as deism. God created them and left them alone. Because God has been banished from you view of the working of the universe, you cannot bear the though of God being banished from life too, so you reject evolution. But the problem is not evolution but the Creationist deism which says the only alternative to miraculous intervention is a God limited to winding up the spring and letting the universe run. This is not the traditional Christian view of God and Creation.

Of course, as a Christian and a child of God you cannot live consistently by this deist philosophy. If you have ever thanked God for a beautiful day or prayed for rain when the fields are parched, if you ever ever praised God for the birth of a beautiful healthy child, or thanked him for the food on your plate, you share with TEs and the church throughout history the real understanding, in your heart at least, of God at work in his Creation.

Interesting. So you think if God does not intervene (when no human was praying for anything), the result of evolution process would be entirely different. May be the verses in Matt 24:20-22 fit what you said [BIBLE]22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.[/BIBLE]

This remind me the movie "Alien and Predator" (yes, I am a science fiction fan). In which aliens are sort of monitoring the development of predators.

Incidentally you only answered half my post.

Sorry, I will find time to do that. I also owe one to Gluadys.

 

[juvenissun]

With all due respect, juvie, these are just empty words. You like to speak of statistical significance and toss around percentages, but when you have no data whatsoever to back up your assertions, and instead use words like "I would think that...", you really don't come across as very convincing. I can just as easily say you're 98.794% likely to be wrong. It means nothing.

Yes, it means something. If you said that, you are "almost" certain that I am wrong. No, I don't have data. But my way of "qualitative" description is more expressional than not to use numbers. What is wrong if I "estimated" the situation with a percentage expression? Why must I have data from other people?

The problem, again, is that both fundamentalist neocreationists and atheists buy into the rediculous idea that Christianity hinges on the scientific veracity of Genesis, rather than upon the saving grace of Christ. I'm 99.872% certain this is true.

Ha ha, to the third decimals. You have a very sharp mind (see, it does mean something, regardless the accuracy of the number). I agree that the problem you pointed out IS indeed a problem. That is why I want to know some answers to the question in OP.

 

[juvenissun]

I dislike the term 'Theistic Evolutionist'. It's not much different than Theistic Gravitationalist, or Theistic Spherical Earthist.

I've only known one person who believes that God intervenes during Evolution. She doesn't believe that we arrived here by natural selection, but instead through God's manipulation of DNA blueprints. This is similar to Michael Behe's belief that humans are God-mutated apes.

Mallon proposed a new term. It should be discussed in the TE subforum (or have been discussed, but no consensus?)

I guess you may find a few more such people here. For example, I feel Gluadys and Assyrian belong to this type. May be Shernren is another one.

 

[Mallon]

Yes, it means something. If you said that, you are "almost" certain that I am wrong. No, I don't have data. But my way of "qualitative" description is more expressional than not to use numbers. What is wrong if I "estimated" the situation with a percentage expression? Why must I have data from other people?

Because it's meaningless. You have developed a reputation for abusing statistics, percentages, and numbers.

Ha ha, to the third decimals. You have a very sharp mind (see, it does mean something, regardless the accuracy of the number). I agree that the problem you pointed out IS indeed a problem. That is why I want to know some answers to the question in OP.

I don't see how the third sentence above follows from the second, but regardless, the question in your OP has been addressed: Your question is not a valid one because it presumes that evolutionary creationists are deists, which we are not. It cannot be answered because it is based on a false pretense.

 

[juvenissun]

Because it's meaningless. You have developed a reputation for abusing statistics, percentages, and numbers.


I don't see how the third sentence above follows from the second, but regardless, the question in your OP has been addressed: Your question is not a valid one because it presumes that evolutionary creationists are deists, which we are not. It cannot be answered because it is based on a false pretense.

So you are not a deist. Fine, I never say you are. Then please tell me how do you put God and evolution together? How does "evolutionary creation" work? In the whole process (from the beginning of life till now), how much is evolution and how much is creation (anyway you like to define the weight)? And how are these two distributed on the time line?

 

[Assyrian]

So you are not a deist. Fine, I never say you are.

No you just keep asking us questions based on the deistic presuppositions of Creationism.

how much is evolution and how much is creation (anyway you like to define the weight)? And how are these two distributed on the time line?

You just don't get it. It is 100% each, always has been. How much is a bible paper and ink, and how much is it God's inspired word?

Interesting. So you think if God does not intervene (when no human was praying for anything), the result of evolution process would be entirely different. May be the verses in Matt 24:20-22 fit what you said [bible]22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.[/bible]

This remind me the movie "Alien and Predator" (yes, I am a science fiction fan). In which aliens are sort of monitoring the development of predators.

Sorry, I will find time to do that. I also owe one to Gluadys.

Do I think if God did not intervene...? Sorry Juv that question is a meaningless speculation about a non biblical view of creation. Are you asking what would happen if God created the universe deistically instead? I suppose if he had wanted to make a wind up deistic universe he could have. But he didn't. Or are you asking what would happen if he stopped being deeply involved theistically and abandoned the universe? That depends of the meaning of "in him all things consist" Col 1:17. Some say the universe would cease to exist or fall apart if God abandoned it. That is a bit too literalist for me. I simply don't know. Nor do I know how God operates in creation, I just know that the bible tells me he does.

Jesus tells me God cares for the sparrows not one is forgotten by God, not one dies outside his will. The bible says God feed young lions and the ravens their prey when they cry for food. Probably feeds them sparrows But God is not up in heaven with a divine pellet gun picking off sparrows to feed his pet corvids. These animals hunt and scavenge for themselves naturally. But this is God watching over his creation too, and I don't know anybody who prays God will provides for ravens and lions.

The bible tells me God provides for non believers as well as those who pray for their daily bread. Remember the verse we looked at Matt 5:45 For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. Paul says the same thing speaking to pagans of Lystra Act 14:17 Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness." Does God send the rain miraculously or intervene to make crops grow? No these are natural processes that the sciences meteorology and botany understand very well, yet the traditional Christian view of God and creation has never never seen a problem or contradiction between the two.

 

[artybloke]

You just don't get it. It is 100% each, always has been. How much is a bible paper and ink, and how much is it God's inspired word?

Or, even better, how much is Christ human, and how much is He divine, in traditional Christian theology?

 

[Mallon]

So you are not a deist. Fine, I never say you are.

Not in those words, no. But you continue to impose deist beliefs (like the idea that God is not continually involved in His creation) upon us evolutionary creationists, well after being told that we do not hold to such views. Forgive me if I begin to suspect that your line of questioning is less than genuine.

Then please tell me how do you put God and evolution together? How does "evolutionary creation" work? In the whole process (from the beginning of life till now), how much is evolution and how much is creation (anyway you like to define the weight)? And how are these two distributed on the time line?

I put God and evolution together the same way I put God and gravity together. The same way I put God and conception together. The same way I put God and the Nitrogen cycle together.
Think about what you are asking, juvie. Would you ask the same question of a self-professed "Christian gravitationalist"? Or of a "Christian embryogenesist"?
God is active even in natural processes (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3; Mt 5:45), including those that involve chance (1 Kg 22:17-38; Prov 16:33; Ac 1:21-26). In fact, nothing happens apart from God. Thus, evolution is both entirely an act of creation and entirely natural at the same time (just like childbirth). Just as I believe in the real presence of communion, so too do I believe in God's real presence in creation. God works "in, with, and under" all things.
Do you believe otherwise, juvie? Do you subscribe to the same deism you push on others? You ask these questions of evolutionary creationists very mockingly, but perhaps it's time you start thinking about what it is you believe because it strikes me that you do not appreciate the intimacy of God's providence.

 

[gluadys]

It is not about general physical/chemical processes. God creates physics laws. Then God takes His hands off them. The processes in your examples do not need God.

Is this genuinely and truly what you believe, Juvie? Is this the typical belief of creationists? I have long suspected it. And, as has been pointed out, this is Deism. And as long as you are wedded to this deistic view of God you will have problems reconciling evolution and creation. For you, God cannot have any meaningful relationship to nature once he has finished creation. God can only be an outsider, and God's only possible contact with his creation is supernatural intervention. (If you check the thread "Life" on the TE subforum, you will see Van taking the same position and mischaracterizing the TE position as one of numerous miraculous interventions.)


Why do you say these processes do not need God? Most TEs would say all these processes need God all the time.

Unless you are suggesting that God does the same to evolution.

No, we are saying that evolution, like reproduction, weather systems, like all physical, chemical, biological processes, needs God all the time: not as an outside intervenor, but as constant sustainor of the order of the universe.

Evolution is about the appearance of new life form.

And the appearance of a new life form is not an event; it is a process.

 

[juvenissun]

OK. Thanks, Mallon, Gluadys and Assyrian. I think all of you three are saying the same thing. And what you said does answer my question in the OP. I understand your explanation. But I am yet convinced that the concept is acceptable.

I want to modify a few words (adds in red, deletes in gray) on what Gluadys said to explain my understanding: For you, God normally does not have any meaningful relationship to nature once he has finished creation. God is normally only be an outsider, and God's only possible contact with his creation is supernatural intervention.

I need to think a little bit. I do not know how to link God and gravity together at all the time. To me, for 99% of the time, God leaves the gravity alone. Paul was lifted to the third Heaven. That is an example of God's intervention to the gravity law. TE to me is a similar idea until now. Hope my new question based on your answer will come soon.

 

[juvenissun]

The bible tells me God provides for non believers as well as those who pray for their daily bread. Remember the verse we looked at Matt 5:45 For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. Paul says the same thing speaking to pagans of Lystra Act 14:17 Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness." Does God send the rain miraculously or intervene to make crops grow? No these are natural processes that the sciences meteorology and botany understand very well, yet the traditional Christian view of God and creation has never never seen a problem or contradiction between the two.

So, according to what you said, God intervenes through a natural process which looks normal to us. And we may not understand the consequence of such intervention. So God and evolution work together all the time just like God is present with the sun all the time.

But could we also say that it is exactly the same feature which indicates God does NOT intervene the natural process? How could we tell if God intervenes through a natural process or He does not intervene the same process at all.

 

[Mallon]

I need to think a little bit. I do not know how to link God and gravity together at all the time. To me, for 99% of the time, God leaves the gravity alone. Paul was lifted to the third Heaven. That is an example of God's intervention to the gravity law. TE to me is a similar idea until now. Hope my new question based on your answer will come soon.

Like many neocreationists, you appear to assume that God acts only via miracles. You assume that nature normally runs its course without God's sustaining providence, and that God enters the picture only when He chooses to temporarily supercede the laws of nature. That's deism.
Of course, this is not a biblical view of God's creation. Col 1:17 tells us God holds together all things. Heb 1:3 tells us that all things are upheld by the word of God's power. Ps 104:29-30, Ps 139:13, and Mt 5:45 tell us that God is involved even in natural processes, like volcanism, embryogenesis, and rainfall. A biblical understanding of God holds that He is intimately involved with His creation at all times, not simply when He feels like it. Sadly, many proponenets of neocreationism, in their haste to tar evolution as a "godless natural process", forget this. We see it happen here time and time again.