Why is God needed in TE?

[Assyrian]

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?

I would say it is exactly the same feature which indicates a natural process. To say it indicates God does not operate though providence or does not exist, is a Dawkins style leap of faith that is unwarranted from the data, the data itself simply tells us about the natural processes.

How could we tell if God intervenes through a natural process or He does not intervene the same process at all.

To know God does operate through natural processes or through direct supernatural intervention is also a statement of faith, faith in God, his goodness and power and in his word. But such a statement of faith does go with the territory if you are a Christian. And as I said you know God operates this way if you have ever thanked God for food you have seen growing in the garden an hour before.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

Very good response. Thanks. I need to think about the verses you quoted. I never understand them as the way you said.

 

[juvenissun]

I would say it is exactly the same feature which indicates a natural process. To say it indicates God does not operate though providence or does not exist, is a Dawkins style leap of faith that is unwarranted from the data, the data itself simply tells us about the natural processes.

To know God does operate through natural processes or through direct supernatural intervention is also a statement of faith, faith in God, his goodness and power and in his word. But such a statement of faith does go with the territory if you are a Christian. And as I said you know God operates this way if you have ever thanked God for food you have seen growing in the garden an hour before.

Thanks for the elaboration. I see your point.

However, a good followup question is brewing in my mind ...

 

[Bouke285]

What about this Theist evolutionists use the excuse because they know the beginning had to come from somewhere. They are no different then the athiest views except they take half the "science" and what science can't explain they fit God in. They are basicly using God, only to explain what their science can't.

Why they don't just take it all the way and call it creation? who knows maybe they are no different than someone not believing in God.

Edit: Also it gives people an easy way out. They don't have to stand up for creation, and yet they don't have to argue with what you would call atheist evolutionists who are no different except they don't accept Jesus, or believe God exists.

 

[Mallon]

What about this Theist evolutionists use the excuse because they know the beginning had to come from somewhere. They are no different then the athiest views except they take half the "science" and what science can't explain they fit God in. They are basicly using God, only to explain what their science can't.

Why they don't just take it all the way and call it creation? who knows maybe they are no different than someone not believing in God.

Edit: Also it gives people an easy way out. They don't have to stand up for creation, and yet they don't have to argue with what you would call atheist evolutionists who are no different except they don't accept Jesus, or believe God exists.

With all due respect, Bouke, I don't think you have a good appreciation for what theistic evolution actually is. Theistic evolutionists do not subscribe to god-of-the-gaps theology, as you accuse us of. That is a position taken by neocreationism generally, and ID proponents, specifically. Stick around here for a while and you'll see that theistic evolutionists are usually the ones to denounce god-of-the-gaps theology and deism. We're also quite vocal that the world and everything in it IS God's creation. That we advocate that it evolved largely via natural processes in no way detracts from that.

Please stick around. You've much to learn about us.

 

[huldah153]

What about this Theist evolutionists use the excuse because they know the beginning had to come from somewhere. They are no different then the athiest views except they take half the "science" and what science can't explain they fit God in. They are basicly using God, only to explain what their science can't.

Why they don't just take it all the way and call it creation? who knows maybe they are no different than someone not believing in God.

Edit: Also it gives people an easy way out. They don't have to stand up for creation, and yet they don't have to argue with what you would call atheist evolutionists who are no different except they don't accept Jesus, or believe God exists.

No, "theistic evolutionists" take the science that is supported by facts. If you compare the human genome to that of a chimp, we both have the same relic of a viral infection inserted in the exact same locations. The only rational explanation for such evidence is that we share a common ancestor that was infected by the same disease.

Just because some overrated atheist professor doesn't like the God-of-the-gaps theory, does not make the argument any less valid.

Getting back on topic. There is no divine intervention during NATURAL selection. Applying some meaning or purpose to evolution is to deny its fundamental nature and beauty.

 

[juvenissun]

Getting back on topic. There is no divine intervention during NATURAL selection. Applying some meaning or purpose to evolution is to deny its fundamental nature and beauty.

Does this qualify you to be a deist according to Assyrian and Mallon?

 

[huldah153]

Does this qualify you to be a deist according to Assyrian and Mallon?

No. Deists derive their evidence for God from the natural world alone, rather than scripture. I, on the other hand, base my evidence on both the former and the latter.

Deists also reject the divinity of Christ, and regard Him as a moral teacher only.

 

[Mallon]

Just because some overrated atheist professor doesn't like the God-of-the-gaps theory, does not make the argument any less valid.

Are you saying you advocate god-of-the-gaps theology, huldah?

 

[huldah153]

Are you saying you advocate god-of-the-gaps theology, huldah?

There is no reason to assume that science can continue to fill the gaps. What science doesn't understand will eventually need to be explained by something "beyond physics".

Einstein's E=MC² junk made sure that science will go nowhere. The ancient Greeks were already closer to the principles behind movement and gravity than is modern junk-science. Modern physics still can't explain how gravity and motion works. It creates priori junk like the thesis about "dark energy" or "dark matter" to hide its ignorance behind fancy names.

 

[Mallon]

There is no reason to assume that science can continue to fill the gaps.

Why? It has done a pretty good job of the filling the gaps thus far, has it not?
At what point do you recommend we stop trying to investigate the natural world using science and simply appeal to miracles of God?

 

[juvenissun]

No. Deists derive their evidence for God from the natural world alone, rather than scripture. I, on the other hand, base my evidence on both the former and the latter.

Deists also reject the divinity of Christ, and regard Him as a moral teacher only.

OK, thanks. I accept your definition.

So, people, don't call it deism so fast when I suggested that evolution works without God's intervention.

 

[Mallon]

So, people, don't call it deism so fast when I suggested that evolution works without God's intervention.

To suggest that God is not intimately involved with His creation -- that He does not sustain and uphold it at every moment -- IS deism, or at least, it reeks of deism. And as I pointed out to you earlier, juvie, it is an unbiblical view of God.
If you are going to seriously argue that evolution, being a natural process, works without God's involvement, then to be consistent, you must also advocate that ALL natural processes work without God's involvement. Are you sure you want to embrace such a view of an indifferent/detached God?

 

[gluadys]

What about this Theist evolutionists use the excuse because they know the beginning had to come from somewhere. They are no different then the athiest views except they take half the "science" and what science can't explain they fit God in. They are basicly using God, only to explain what their science can't.

This sounds like projection of your own views onto TE. As we have already been over this earlier in this thread, it is generally YECists who assume that nature works without God and the only place you need God is in the gaps science cannot explain.

TEs assume that all of nature needs God, both what we can explain and what we can't explain.

YECists tend to look for God in the dark spots of our ignorance. TEs tend to look for God in the light of our understanding, and have faith that God also understands what we don't.

Edit: Also it gives people an easy way out. They don't have to stand up for creation, and yet they don't have to argue with what you would call atheist evolutionists who are no different except they don't accept Jesus, or believe God exists.

Actually, we do defend creation in the face of atheism. We refuse to let atheists claim science as their private preserve. But we don't find it necessary in most cases to argue with them about evolution.

 

[huldah153]

If you are going to seriously argue that evolution, being a natural process, works without God's involvement, then to be consistent, you must also advocate that ALL natural processes work without God's involvement. Are you sure you want to embrace such a view of an indifferent/detached God?

Are you referring to me? If so, I'd argue that your views are more deistic than mine. I believe that God created the first cell and built the universe piece by piece. Presumably, you accept the secular theories concerning the origin of life & the universe. Thus, in your scenario, God created everything through one big cosmic explosion, and then sat back and did nothing for billions and billions of years.

 

[Mallon]

Are you referring to me?

I was referring to juvie, actually. Your views don't appear so dissimilar to his, though.

If so, I'd argue that your views are more deistic than mine. I believe that God created the first cell and built the universe piece by piece.

What do you mean by this? Do you subscribe to evolution? Or are you an ID proponent?

Presumably, you accept the secular theories concerning the origin of life & the universe. Thus, in your scenario, God created everything through one big cosmic explosion, and then sat back and did nothing for billions and billions of years.

I agree that the scenario you present would be deistic. But that isn't what I believe. I believe that the world came about largely via natural processes (Big Bang, evolution, etc.), but that doesn't mean God wasn't involved throughout. The Bible tells us that nothing in this world happens apart from God. The Bible tells us that God holds everything together. I believe this is true of both natural and supernatural events.
Do you believe the same thing?

 

[huldah153]

What do you mean by this? Do you subscribe to evolution? Or are you an ID proponent?

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life or the universe.

I agree that the scenario you present would be deistic. But that isn't what I believe. I believe that the world came about largely via natural processes (Big Bang, evolution, etc.), but that doesn't mean God wasn't involved throughout. The Bible tells us that nothing in this world happens apart from God. The Bible tells us that God holds everything together. I believe this is true of both natural and supernatural events.
Do you believe the same thing?

In my view, God can see into the future, but I wouldn't go as far as to say our species was predetermined, or that everything happens according to His will. Are the deaths of innocent children the result of the wrath of God?

 

[Mallon]

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life or the universe.

I agree. So you believe that God miraculously created the universe and the first cell in an instant, and that He has allowed both to evolve naturally since then. Is that right? Do you also believe that God is intimately involved in the unfolding of these natural processes, or do you believe they occur apart from Him?

In my view, God can see into the future, but I wouldn't go as far as to say our species was predetermined, or that everything happens according to His will. Are the deaths of innocent children the result of the wrath of God?

I also don't believe in predestination. God gave us free will to choose between right and wrong. Still, I believe God is intimately involved in sustaining His creation at every point along the way. Do you still think my views are deistic?

 

[huldah153]

Do you also believe that God is intimately involved in the unfolding of these natural processes, or do you believe they occur apart from God?

This is a question beyond human comprehension. How can I possibly know whether God guided a mutation, or selection process, etc. ?

 

[Mallon]

This is a question beyond human comprehension. How can I possibly know whether God guided a mutation, or selection process, etc. ?

Well, the Bible tells us that God is continuously creating even to this day (Ps 104:29-30, 139:13), that He continually upholds all of creation (Col 1:17, Heb 1:3, Job 38-41, Ps 104), and that He is intimately and actively involved in natural processes (Amos 4:6ff, Mt 5:45) including those than involve randomness (1 Kg 22:17-38, Prov 16:33, Ac 1:21-26).
I'm reluctant, therefore, to say that we cannot know whether God acts through the processes of evolution. The way the Bible describes God's action in the world certainly leads me to believe that He is intimately involved in evolution, and with every other aspect of His creation.