Young Earth looking Old

[random_guy]

This is about the sum total. The Creationary Theory spoke to those who don't know God, who have never read the Bible that God is the Creator. Now, you want this to be removed. So, how will the Evolutionary Theory speak of God to those who don't know God and have never read the Bible?

Paul teaches that Creation itself points to a Creator. Creationary Theory studies Creation and points to the Creator. Evolutionary Theory studies Creation and does not point to a Creator.

Show me how the theory you support will point someone who doesn't know God to God.

But science wasn't meant to glorify God. Science is a system of knowledge about how things work. So where do we stand. Gravity, atomic theory, germ theory, evolution, none of these include God.

Why is it that Creationists only have problems with Evolution. Why don't they give up science since science only seems to remove God from the natural world, according to them.

 

[gluadys]

Here is the problem. We have the Creationary Theory that speaks of God, points to God and declares God as the Creator. It has been an effective evangelism tool for many people to learn about God Almighty.

Now, you want this Theory that gives God the glory to be removed. You want the Evolutionary Theory to replace it. Tell me how this Evolutionary Theory will do what the Creationary Theory does; speaking of God, pointing to God, declaring God as the Creator.

The heart of the issue is that in one Theory God is declared, the other, God is silenced. Tell me why you as a Christian support silencing any talk of God as the Creator within the public arena of these Theories.

The real difference is that Creation is not a theory at all. It is a doctrine i.e. a religious teaching. So of course it speaks of God, because it is not based on evidence, but on faith.

Evolution, by contrast, is not a doctrine, but a scientific theory. It is wholly based on evidence, and is not a doctrine for which faith is required.

There is simply no reason not to hold to both the doctrine of creation and the theory of evolution, to hold to creation by faith, and to evolution because of the evidence.

And there is no need to silence any talk of God as the Creator in the public arena either. As long as it is in the proper place--in discussions of faith, doctrine and religion.

Evolution deals with the mechanics of biodiversity. The facts of evolution are the same no matter whether one believes in God or not. Creation deals with the metaphysics of the origin of all things created (not just species, although including species). That is a matter of theology and philosophy, and conclusions depend much more on subjective intuition and faith.

Your error is to try and turn evolution into a metaphysics and demand from it comment on metaphysical questions which science is not equipped to answer or even speculate on.

 

[Critias]

First I didn't say because of the assertion that evolution is true. I said because evolution is true. No assertion would make evolution true if it were false. And no denial makes it false since it is true.

It teaches of God in the same way as the stars of heaven do. Psalm 19:1

When you gaze at the heavens on a clear starry night, or watch an incredibly beautiful sunset or take the opportunity to see the northern lights or an eclipse, what do they teach you of God and what he did as the Creator?

Why are some people capable of studying the celestial bodies and yet remaining oblivious to the existence of God?

When I first studied evolution I immediately saw the hand of God in it; others don't. The difference is not in what is studied but in the attitude of the student.

Common descent falls under the Evolutionary Theory and has not been proven to be true. So, yes, it is your assertion, not truth.

You want the Creationary Theory removed and replaced permantly with the Evolutionary Theory, correct?

 

[Critias]

Go on, show me how Harun Yahya points to Jehovah God and Kenneth Miller points away from God.

If you don't want to answer my question or cannot, just say so. You continue to divert the issue so that you don't have to answer the question. I don't see how this question is so hard for so many of you to answer.

How do you know that you heard God correctly?

Read the Bible.

Like I explained on the other thread, TEs dogmatically hold to a particular manmade interpretation of nature, while YECs dogmatically hold to a particular manmade interpretation of scripture. By saying that "God did not say Genesis 1 as a myth", aren't you limiting God? How do you know that God didn't have purpose for a myth?

Tell me what Exodus 20:11 says.

I don't think I'm communicating my argument clearly enough. Let's look at two variants of the creationist argument.

A': God created a young universe that looks old.

A: God created a young universe that looks old, because
B: only a universe that looks old can support life.

Now, if creationists claim A', TEs cannot debate the truth of A' from a scientific point of view. You are absolutely right. God could have, for all we know and care. He had/has the power to do just that. Fine. But this can be debated from a theo-logical point of view (hyphen intended), asking what the purpose of A' is. In other words, what is the logic of God performing A'?

Maybe this is your problem. I didn't say God created a universe for the purpose of looking old. I said God created a universe that was capable of sustaining life within six days of Creation.

Would you like to show me Biblically where I am wrong?

Now, you could always say "Whatever God does will seem stupid and useless to you! Go away, faithless heathen!" and then there would be no more discussion. But instead, you feel compelled to supply a logical reason for A'. To support A', creationists therefore come up with argument AB. In other words AB supplies the purpose of A', though not the truth of A'. I could demolish AB (as I have already, without refutation), and the truth of A' could still stand, though its purpose would not. God could still jolly well have created the earth with an appearance of 5 billion years of age. The question is, why?

I find your statement of "faithless heathen" to insue I said such a thing. You are quite wrong!

Here's an analogy. Imagine this common argument:

A': My bedtime is earlier than my elder brother's bedtime.

A: My bedtime is earlier than my elder brother's bedtime, because
B: my father loves me less than my elder brother.

How does the father disprove this line of thinking? He does not attack A'. He does not magically say "Alright, you can sleep at 12am tonight." Instead he attacks the AB link, saying instead that "Your bedtime is earlier than your elder brother's (A) because you have less energy than him (C)." AB has fallen and yet A' still remains. The truth of A' would have stood whether or not AB was true; the purpose of A' changed from AB to AC, and thus reassured me that my father was indeed logical in performing A'.

It is exactly the same with the age of appearance theory. Sure, God could have created the universe to look old (A'). But why? Is it because that appearance was necessary for life (AB)? No! Appearance of billions of years' age is not necessary for life. A universe hundreds of billions of lightyears wide is not necessary for a civilization less than 6,000 years old. So, appearance was not necessary for life. (AB refuted). For all we know, God could have created the universe to look old (the truth of A' stands), but without any logical plausible reason (the purpose of A', AB, has fallen). I have not limited God's power: I have merely tried to understand His intentions. It is something the Bible itself tells us to do.

Again, God didn't create the universe with the purpose to look old, but rather for the purpose of sustaining life. Again, care to show how I am wrong Biblically that God created a universe to sustain life in six days?

 

[Critias]

But science wasn't meant to glorify God.

Exactly!! Tell me, is the Bible wrong to state that in whatever we do, we should do it to Glorify God?

Science is a system of knowledge about how things work. So where do we stand. Gravity, atomic theory, germ theory, evolution, none of these include God.

Why is it that Creationists only have problems with Evolution. Why don't they give up science since science only seems to remove God from the natural world, according to them.

Because, you want the Evolutionary Theory to replace the Creationary Theory that does glorify God and points to God as the Creator.

 

[Critias]

The real difference is that Creation is not a theory at all. It is a doctrine i.e. a religious teaching. So of course it speaks of God, because it is not based on evidence, but on faith.

As is the Evolutionary Theory. There is no tangible evidence that proves common descent, only theories that theorize it. So, you must have faith to believe common descent. Likewise, abiogenesis where life just happens to spring up out of nothing, without an intelligent Creator, require faith for there is no evidence. The Big Bang also requires faith, for there is no real tangible evidence. And let us not forget that man was not there, so man has not eye witness accounts to postulate an observance of what happened.

Evolution, by contrast, is not a doctrine, but a scientific theory. It is wholly based on evidence, and is not a doctrine for which faith is required.

There is simply no reason not to hold to both the doctrine of creation and the theory of evolution, to hold to creation by faith, and to evolution because of the evidence.

And there is no need to silence any talk of God as the Creator in the public arena either. As long as it is in the proper place--in discussions of faith, doctrine and religion.

Evolution deals with the mechanics of biodiversity. The facts of evolution are the same no matter whether one believes in God or not. Creation deals with the metaphysics of the origin of all things created (not just species, although including species). That is a matter of theology and philosophy, and conclusions depend much more on subjective intuition and faith.

Your error is to try and turn evolution into a metaphysics and demand from it comment on metaphysical questions which science is not equipped to answer or even speculate on.

I have seen you countless times argue against the Creationary Theory, and for the Evolutionary Theory to replace the Creationary one. Yet, you state here it is not science, but yet you desire it to be abandoned and argue as if you hate it. Yet, where does the Evolutionary Theory point to a Creator as the Creationary Theory you hate, does?

You know where I err? I err because I desire God to receive all credit for what He has done. I desire God to have the glory, not man. I desire for all mankind to speak of God regardless of where they are at; in a public or private arena. My God deserves to be heard everywhere and nowhere excluded, including science. Yet, TEs here fight viciously against YECs who want God to receive the credit and glory for what He has done. YECs stand up for the Creationary Theory for it points to God as the Creator and TEs bash them for it.

Tell me, as a Christian, why you desire God to be removed from science permantly?

 

[gluadys]

Common descent falls under the Evolutionary Theory and has not been proven to be true.

Science doesn't "prove" theories. It assesses evidence for them. Since all the available evidence points to common descent--and some observations, such as ERVS have no other logical explanation at all--common descent remains the only viable scientific conclusion, given the current state of our knowledge about species past and present.

You want the Creationary Theory removed and replaced permantly with the Evolutionary Theory, correct?

Where did you ever get that idea? Since I do not consider them contradictory, I do not consider replacement necessary at all. Truth does not contradict truth, remember? So the truth of evolution does not contradict the truth of creation. It simply gives us more information about the mechanics of creation in relation to the emergence of new species.

 

[Critias]

Science doesn't "prove" theories. It assesses evidence for them. Since all the available evidence points to common descent--and some observations, such as ERVS have no other logical explanation at all--common descent remains the only viable scientific conclusion, given the current state of our knowledge about species past and present.



Where did you ever get that idea? Since I do not consider them contradictory, I do not consider replacement necessary at all. Truth does not contradict truth, remember? So the truth of evolution does not contradict the truth of creation. It simply gives us more information about the mechanics of creation in relation to the emergence of new species.

Then you should stop arguing against YECs then.

 

[gluadys]

As is the Evolutionary Theory. There is no tangible evidence that proves common descent, only theories that theorize it.

Surely you know by now that scientific theories are not will-o-the-wisp guesses invented in a vacuum, but conclusions drawn from observed physical phenomena. Theories are what science does. They are the pinnacle of scientific achievement. You want to show that a theory is inadequate or untrue, you have to come up with the necessary observations.

Common descent is concluded from very tangible evidence for which no other theory offers a logical explanation.

I have seen you countless times argue against the Creationary Theory, and for the Evolutionary Theory to replace the Creationary one.

Note my objection to calling creation a "theory" with the implication that it is dealing with science. Creation does not deal with scientific issues. It neither predicts nor explains a single observation of physical phenomena.

That does not make it untrue! It just makes it unscientific. And why should it be considered scientific? It is not the task of the doctrine of creation to give a detailed account of the history of life on earth. It is the task of the doctrine of creation to call attention to the Creator and his work, to our status as creatures under God, to God's love for his creation, to God's purpose in creating us, and to the relationship with God we were created to enjoy.

None of this is or could ever be science.

And you have never heard me argue against creation. I have argued against creationism and unwarranted literal interpretations of scripture, but never against creation.

but yet you desire it to be abandoned

See my earlier post. I have no reason or desire to see the doctrine of creation abandoned. I consider it one of the most important tenets of the Christian faith.

and argue as if you hate it.

No, I don't hate creation. I hate the distortion of the doctrine of creation that goes under the rubric of creationism, because I consider it a travesty of the doctrine of creation, a false teaching about creation and about the Creator. I think this creationism is very damaging to sound Christian theology and to the people who subscribe to it.

Do you not argue vociferously against what you consider to be false teaching?

Tell me, as a Christian, why you desire God to be removed from science permantly?

I have never argued for God to be removed from science. But we have to remember, first, that science is the study of observable physical phenomena. It is the task of science to help us understand these phenomena--not to preach about God. Nevertheless, the better science does its task, the more reason we have to glorify God for the world he has created.

Second, we have to remember that the task of science is to find the natural causal relationships among observed natural phenomena. Science does not seek to explain the miraculous, since that, by definition, is not explainable.

Unless you subscribe to the notion that God did not establish and does not sustain and never uses natural causation (and why a Christian would ever subscribe to such nonsense, I don't know) it is an error to suggest that when scientists succeed in discovering natural causation, they are somehow attacking God. It is even more an error to suggest that scientists in general are motivated to seek natural causation in order to deny God. Rather for the Christian scientist (and other theists) the motivation in seeking out natural causation is to more fully understand what God has wrought.

Evolution, like all scientific theories, offers us the opportunity to understand better the work of God. And a better understanding produces IMO greater glory to God. Even without the word "God" written into the science curriculum.

Your real problem is that you live in a secular society which has mandated a wall between government and religion. When evolution is taught in a private Christian educational institution, there is absolutely no reason not to mention God in the science classroom and to discuss evolution as the work of God.

But you cannot do that in a public tax-supported school. Not because science is anti-God, but because the state may not favour one religious position over another. And let's face it--text book publishers aim for the largest market, which is the public school market. So they create texts in all subjects, including science, which can be used by people of all faiths and none. Even when they create texts about religion, they have to speak in terms of what different cultures and religions believe, not in terms of which belief, if any, is true.

Now personally I deplore the wholesale secularization of society and the schools. I think we need to deal with religious pluralism by acknowledging it and giving it a place in the public square. Rather than suppressing and ignoring religion to be "fair" to everyone, we should be helping everyone understand the faith or non-faith of their neighbours and encouraging the public expression of faith.

Ironically, the strongest opposition to such an agenda comes from Christians. In Ontario, after the courts ruled that opening exercices in public schools could not be exclusively Christian, school boards were given the option of developing a cycle of opening exercises that used readings from many different religious and secular works, or observing a moment of silence in which students could individually and privately pray or not as they wished.

Most school boards, of course, consulted the public about which option to choose. In my community, which is fairly pluralistic in its demographics, we convinced the school board to go with the cycle of readings. But in many communities where the demographics were more homogenously Christian, Christians themselves pushed for the moment of silence. They preferred to have no religion in the public school than to acknowledge that other faiths exist. Then they have the nerve to complain that God has been excluded from the school.

Anyway, that is by-the-by. You want to mention God in science class, work on changing your constitution. Don't blame science for what is really a constitutional matter.

 

[gluadys]

Then you should stop arguing against YECs then.

I don't consider YECism to be truth. I don't consider YECism to be true to scripture or to offer a coherent understanding of creation. I consider YECism to undermine the doctrine of creation.

So why would I not argue against it?

 

[Didaskomenos]

Instead of answering my question you decided to go off on a tangent.

Explain to me how the Evolutionary Theory will point people to God as the Creator.

You want the Creationary Theory that does this to be removed and not talked about in a public arena.

The Creationary Theory leads people to the conclusion that God is the Creator, so how does the Evolutionary Theory do so?

? My point is that we don't choose to believe something based on whether it will lead people to God as the Creator. We believe things because they are true, even if they don't point to God as the Creator.

 

[Critias]

Surely you know by now that scientific theories are not will-o-the-wisp guesses invented in a vacuum, but conclusions drawn from observed physical phenomena. Theories are what science does. They are the pinnacle of scientific achievement. You want to show that a theory is inadequate or untrue, you have to come up with the necessary observations.

Common descent is concluded from very tangible evidence for which no other theory offers a logical explanation.



Note my objection to calling creation a "theory" with the implication that it is dealing with science. Creation does not deal with scientific issues. It neither predicts nor explains a single observation of physical phenomena.

That does not make it untrue! It just makes it unscientific. And why should it be considered scientific? It is not the task of the doctrine of creation to give a detailed account of the history of life on earth. It is the task of the doctrine of creation to call attention to the Creator and his work, to our status as creatures under God, to God's love for his creation, to God's purpose in creating us, and to the relationship with God we were created to enjoy.

None of this is or could ever be science.

And you have never heard me argue against creation. I have argued against creationism and unwarranted literal interpretations of scripture, but never against creation.



See my earlier post. I have no reason or desire to see the doctrine of creation abandoned. I consider it one of the most important tenets of the Christian faith.



No, I don't hate creation. I hate the distortion of the doctrine of creation that goes under the rubric of creationism, because I consider it a travesty of the doctrine of creation, a false teaching about creation and about the Creator. I think this creationism is very damaging to sound Christian theology and to the people who subscribe to it.

Do you not argue vociferously against what you consider to be false teaching?




I have never argued for God to be removed from science. But we have to remember, first, that science is the study of observable physical phenomena. It is the task of science to help us understand these phenomena--not to preach about God. Nevertheless, the better science does its task, the more reason we have to glorify God for the world he has created.

Second, we have to remember that the task of science is to find the natural causal relationships among observed natural phenomena. Science does not seek to explain the miraculous, since that, by definition, is not explainable.

Unless you subscribe to the notion that God did not establish and does not sustain and never uses natural causation (and why a Christian would ever subscribe to such nonsense, I don't know) it is an error to suggest that when scientists succeed in discovering natural causation, they are somehow attacking God. It is even more an error to suggest that scientists in general are motivated to seek natural causation in order to deny God. Rather for the Christian scientist (and other theists) the motivation in seeking out natural causation is to more fully understand what God has wrought.

Evolution, like all scientific theories, offers us the opportunity to understand better the work of God. And a better understanding produces IMO greater glory to God. Even without the word "God" written into the science curriculum.

Your real problem is that you live in a secular society which has mandated a wall between government and religion. When evolution is taught in a private Christian educational institution, there is absolutely no reason not to mention God in the science classroom and to discuss evolution as the work of God.

But you cannot do that in a public tax-supported school. Not because science is anti-God, but because the state may not favour one religious position over another. And let's face it--text book publishers aim for the largest market, which is the public school market. So they create texts in all subjects, including science, which can be used by people of all faiths and none. Even when they create texts about religion, they have to speak in terms of what different cultures and religions believe, not in terms of which belief, if any, is true.

Now personally I deplore the wholesale secularization of society and the schools. I think we need to deal with religious pluralism by acknowledging it and giving it a place in the public square. Rather than suppressing and ignoring religion to be "fair" to everyone, we should be helping everyone understand the faith or non-faith of their neighbours and encouraging the public expression of faith.

Ironically, the strongest opposition to such an agenda comes from Christians. In Ontario, after the courts ruled that opening exercices in public schools could not be exclusively Christian, school boards were given the option of developing a cycle of opening exercises that used readings from many different religious and secular works, or observing a moment of silence in which students could individually and privately pray or not as they wished.

Most school boards, of course, consulted the public about which option to choose. In my community, which is fairly pluralistic in its demographics, we convinced the school board to go with the cycle of readings. But in many communities where the demographics were more homogenously Christian, Christians themselves pushed for the moment of silence. They preferred to have no religion in the public school than to acknowledge that other faiths exist. Then they have the nerve to complain that God has been excluded from the school.

Anyway, that is by-the-by. You want to mention God in science class, work on changing your constitution. Don't blame science for what is really a constitutional matter.

Since you call Creationism a false teaching, show me using the Bible how believing God created in six days is false teaching.

This has nothing to do with the classroom. I never made mention of it.

Show me how the Evolutionary Theory points to God as the Creator. It is a simple question that you and others cannot seem to answer.

 

[Critias]

? My point is that we don't choose to believe something based on whether it will lead people to God as the Creator. We believe things because they are true, even if they don't point to God as the Creator.

So, as Christians, we believe things even if they don't say God is the Creator? Interesting. So, as a Christian, you are fine with supporting a theory that doesn't point to God as the Creator?

Tell me, do you think the Bible is wrong to say in everything we do we should acknowledge God?

 

[Didaskomenos]

So, as Christians, we believe things even if they don't say God is the Creator? Interesting. So, as a Christian, you are fine with supporting a theory that doesn't point to God as the Creator?

Tell me, do you think the Bible is wrong to say in everything we do we should acknowledge God?

WHAT? We can believe only what is true, which excludes anything that denies God as Creator. And evolution does not do this. Some people do this, and use the neutral tool of evolution to propound it.

I am having a hard time believing that you don't know what the Bible means when it says, "In all your ways acknowledge Him". Is English your first language?

1) It says that we as people are to acknowledge Him. It does not promise that everything that exists must proclaim YHWH as God of the universe for it to exist (such as evidence for an old earth/evolution).
2) That verse is to be translated, "In all your coming and goings (ways=roads), seek to know Him (the more ambiguous Hebrew yada 'know' being clarified by the LXX's gnorizo 'make known, come to know' with the pronoun added), and He will direct your paths (LXX uses the same word for 'road' both times).
3) What other verse can you possibly give me that tells us that we are to cast aside everything that doesn't overtly name God as Creator? I make no argument against the firmament showing His handiwork, but if it's not recognized as His handiwork, it's not the firmament's or God's fault! It's man's fault.

 

[Critias]

WHAT? We can believe only what is true, which excludes anything that denies God as Creator. And evolution does not do this. Some people do this, and use the neutral tool of evolution to propound it.

Ok, how does the Evolutionary Theory point to God as the Creator?

I am having a hard time believing that you don't know what the Bible means when it says, "In all your ways acknowledge Him". Is English your first language?

I don't see why you can't answer my question and why you instead return personal attacks. So, tell me how the Evolutionary Theory acknowledges God.

1) It says that we as people are to acknowledge Him. It does not promise that everything that exists must proclaim YHWH as God of the universe for it to exist (such as evidence for an old earth/evolution).

Oh, so what we say doesn't have anything do with our ways of acknowledging God?

2) That verse is to be translated, "In all your coming and goings (ways=roads), seek to know Him (the more ambiguous Hebrew yada 'know' being clarified by the LXX's gnorizo 'make known, come to know' with the pronoun added), and He will direct your paths (LXX uses the same word for 'road' both times).

There is more than just a verse that talks about acknowledging and glorify God by what say and do.

3) What other verse can you possibly give me that tells us that we are to cast aside everything that doesn't overtly name God as Creator? I make no argument against the firmament showing His handiwork, but if it's not recognized as His handiwork, it's not the firmament's or God's fault! It's man's fault.

I didn't even give you a verse. I spoke about what the Bible teaches. Do you want me to present verses that talk about acknowledging and glorify God to prove that we should do so? Do you not agree that we should?

Tell me, how does the Evolutionary Theory point to God as the Creator?

 

[gluadys]

Since you call Creationism a false teaching, show me using the Bible how believing God created in six days is false teaching.

Impossible. The bible tells the truth. So there is no creationism in the bible. I have never said that creation in six days is false teaching. I have said it is not a teaching about historical days.

This has nothing to do with the classroom. I never made mention of it.

The classroom is part of the public place you were speaking of--and it is certainly at the centre of most of the public debate.

Show me how the Evolutionary Theory points to God as the Creator. It is a simple question that you and others cannot seem to answer.

It correctly describes a segment of God's creation. It thus opens up the wonders of the biological world in a way that one can see how biological life responds to the will of the creator in a logical and consistent way. The study of creation consistently leads to a sense of awe and wonder even in hardened atheists--as they themselves acknowledge.

Evolution also shows that all life is related. That we are part of a marvellous web of life in which everything has its appointed place. It shows that physically, I am not, as a human being, superior to or more evolved than any other form of life. A worm is as marvellous a piece of physical creation as I am. And I am dependent on that worm to create much of the soil that grows my food. So it teaches humility in the face of creation and its creator, and thankfulness for all creation--not just the parts we like. And, hopefully, compassion.

Finally, the more we learn about different species and their needs, the more we learn about how we can live harmoniously with the rest of creation, given our superior intellect and ability to control natural processes. It also shows how far we are from doing so, for we let pride and egotism and greed dictate how we exercise our dominion. So it even teaches us how sinful we are.


Now in a sense all that is true, but also tommyrot.

The theory of evolution in itself tells us none of these things. It simply tells us how species change over time, and how they are related to each other through common ancestry.

But when one begins to think philosophically and theologically about these facts, the rest follows. The study of life forms past and present (which necessarily includes a study of their evolution) presents a wondrous awe-inspiring, humbling story that calls forth praise for the creator if one is a believer, and may serve as a stepping stone to belief for one who is not yet a believer.

It will not on its own convert anyone. But it can provide some basis on which belief in God can be built and sustained.

And remember, my premise is not that the theory of evolution should replace the doctrine of creation. Rather the theory of evolution should be understood within the doctrine of creation. And our doctrine of creation should be informed by the facts of evolution.

As Christians we have to begin with the premise that both the doctrine of creation and the theory of evolution are true and go on from there.

 

[Critias]

Impossible. The bible tells the truth. So there is no creationism in the bible. I have never said that creation in six days is false teaching. I have said it is not a teaching about historical days.

Is that why in Hebrew everytime it speaks of yom with a number it means a literal 24 hour day?

The classroom is part of the public place you were speaking of--and it is certainly at the centre of most of the public debate.

No, it has been your instances that I am speaking specifically of the classroom, not mine. You created this assertion, I did not.

It must anger you so that several states have allowed schools to now question the Evolutionary Theory and talk about Intelligent Design. After all, it was you, as well as other TEs, who said God shouldn't be apart of the discussions on science.

It correctly describes a segment of God's creation. It thus opens up the wonders of the biological world in a way that one can see how biological life responds to the will of the creator in a logical and consistent way. The study of creation consistently leads to a sense of awe and wonder even in hardened atheists--as they themselves acknowledge.

Evolution also shows that all life is related. That we are part of a marvellous web of life in which everything has its appointed place. It shows that physically, I am not, as a human being, superior to or more evolved than any other form of life. A worm is as marvellous a piece of physical creation as I am. And I am dependent on that worm to create much of the soil that grows my food. So it teaches humility in the face of creation and its creator, and thankfulness for all creation--not just the parts we like. And, hopefully, compassion.

Finally, the more we learn about different species and their needs, the more we learn about how we can live harmoniously with the rest of creation, given our superior intellect and ability to control natural processes. It also shows how far we are from doing so, for we let pride and egotism and greed dictate how we exercise our dominion. So it even teaches us how sinful we are.


Now in a sense all that is true, but also tommyrot.

The theory of evolution in itself tells us none of these things. It simply tells us how species change over time, and how they are related to each other through common ancestry.

But when one begins to think philosophically and theologically about these facts, the rest follows. The study of life forms past and present (which necessarily includes a study of their evolution) presents a wondrous awe-inspiring, humbling story that calls forth praise for the creator if one is a believer, and may serve as a stepping stone to belief for one who is not yet a believer.

It will not on its own convert anyone. But it can provide some basis on which belief in God can be built and sustained.

And remember, my premise is not that the theory of evolution should replace the doctrine of creation. Rather the theory of evolution should be understood within the doctrine of creation. And our doctrine of creation should be informed by the facts of evolution.

As Christians we have to begin with the premise that both the doctrine of creation and the theory of evolution are true and go on from there.

All those words, and yet no answer for my question. How will the Evolutionary Theory point to God as the Creator for those who haven't read the Bible and don't know God?

You know, like the Creationary Theory does.

 

[vossler]

But science wasn't meant to glorify God.

Exactly!! Tell me, is the Bible wrong to state that in whatever we do, we should do it to Glorify God?

Science is a system of knowledge about how things work. So where do we stand. Gravity, atomic theory, germ theory, evolution, none of these include God.

Why is it that Creationists only have problems with Evolution. Why don't they give up science since science only seems to remove God from the natural world, according to them.

Because, you want the Evolutionary Theory to replace the Creationary Theory that does glorify God and points to God as the Creator.

This dialog really summarizes the entire TE vs. Creationism debate.

Thanks Critias for taking a seemingly complex issue and bringing it down to its core issues.

 

[shernren]

If you don't want to answer my question or cannot, just say so. You continue to divert the issue so that you don't have to answer the question. I don't see how this question is so hard for so many of you to answer.

I am not dodging. I and others have already answered how evolutionary theory does indeed point to God. Now, how does creationary theory point to God? After all, when AiG comes up with some latest "anti-evolutionary" statement that supposedly points "to God", half the time Islamic creationist groups start aping it and coming up with statements that point "to Allah". If creationism points to God then why is it pointing to Allah?

The fact is that no theory alone can point to or away from God, except the "theory" that God chose to be incarnated as man to die on the cross to atone for the sins of the world. That is the only uniquely Christian theory in the world. Creationism is not uniquely Christian, and creation science isn't half workable, so why put weight behind it?

Again, God didn't create the universe with the purpose to look old, but rather for the purpose of sustaining life. Again, care to show how I am wrong Biblically that God created a universe to sustain life in six days?

So you admit that the universe's looking old has nothing to do with its sustaining life?

I find your statement of "faithless heathen" to insue I said such a thing. You are quite wrong!

I'm sorry to have offended you, but you get the point. When people say that there is evidence for evolution you find it easy to brush them off as substandard Christians who don't like to see God glorified. So when people say that God had no reason to make the world look old, you are perfectly at liberty to employ the exact same defense, instead of finding a rationalization on God's behalf ("God made the universe look old because only then it would support life!" - falsified) that doesn't stand up anyhow.

 

[gluadys]

Is that why in Hebrew everytime it speaks of yom with a number it means a literal 24 hour day?

A 24-hour day does not need to be a historical day.

It must anger you so that several states have allowed schools to now question the Evolutionary Theory and talk about Intelligent Design. After all, it was you, as well as other TEs, who said God shouldn't be apart of the discussions on science.

Saddens, not angers. Actually, God should be part of discussions on science. But not part of the teaching of science. I trust you understand the difference. There is nothing science can say about God.

All those words, and yet no answer for my question.

Rejecting the answer does not mean it was not given.

You know, like the Creationary Theory does.

By the way just how does creationary "theory" point to God scientifically? Doesn't it just assume God?