New missing link primate? (Ida)

[IgoFan]

My question first please.

Ok, the question is why do some Christians except darwinian evolution? First off, Bible believing Christians (if they believe that God created everything), do NOT fully embrace Darwinian evolution. If they embrace evolution it is called theistic evolution. Theistic evolution, however, is completely unexceptionable to the public classrooms and to certain scientists due to its theistic premises and conclusion. It is therefore considered invalid and not scientific... Darwinian evolution or neo-Darwinism is a materialist philosophy, which is a worldview based on the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its current form by impersonal chance (not a god). Nowhere will you find theistic evolution taught in any public science book or a public class devoted to it.. That would be completely unacceptable...

Clearer now?

The term theistic evolution is too nebulous, because the Wikipedia article says: [Theistic evolution] covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God [...].

Let me be specific: many, many Christians DO support what science calls evolution, e.g., the progression of natural processes from the beginning of life, to one-celled animals, worms, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, primates, humans, and finally, to Michael Jackson.

They agree that God did not have to intervene to create an eye, a blood-clotting mechanism, flagella, or whatever the ID creationism example-du-jour is.

Of course, they certainly accept God's creation of the early universe, and of souls at some point in primate evolution. And they accept some temporary suspension of the laws of physics for miracles here and there.

However, NONE of them agree with philosophical naturalism, which you seem to require to support evolution. Again I ask, so how can they support such a view of evolution, which you are vehemently against?

[Gman]

The term theistic evolution is too nebulous, because the Wikipedia article says: [Theistic evolution] covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God [...].

No... It is not nebulous. This is saying the "extent" of any intervention, not any (or no) intervention. ANY intervention by God is considered automatically unscientific.. It is invalid because it requires divine intervention, it is not scientific...

Let me be specific: many, many Christians DO support what science calls evolution, e.g., the progression of natural processes from the beginning of life, to one-celled animals, worms, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, primates, humans, and finally, to Michael Jackson.

Again, some Christians do accept a form of evolution but NOT scientific naturalism (the way it is taught in public schools).. It is called theistic evolution where God uses evolutionary principles to create. Also called front loading...

They agree that God did not have to intervene to create an eye, a blood-clotting mechanism, flagella, or whatever the ID creationism example-du-jour is.

So the eye, a blood-clotting mechanism, or flagella created itself on it's own? Then they are not Bible believing Christians...

Of course, they certainly accept God's creation of the early universe, and of souls at some point in primate evolution. And they accept some temporary suspension of the laws of physics for miracles here and there.

No.. It is not God's creation if he didn't create it. It would be natures creation... Also no miracles are ever excepted in science. That is why any intervention (of any kind) is not considered scientific...

However, NONE of them agree with philosophical naturalism, which you seem to require to support evolution. Again I ask, so how can they support such a view of evolution, which you are vehemently against?

Again, they do NOT fully embrace naturalism, the basic principles in which Darwinian evolution stands upon. They support theistic evolution which is not accepted by the scientific community.

[IgoFan]

So the eye, a blood-clotting mechanism, or flagella created itself on it's own? Then they are not Bible believing Christians...

The many devout Christians I'm talking about believe God is powerful enough to create a universe sufficient to produce us according to His laws of physics. Pretending that those many people don't exist doesn't make them go away. How sad that only now do they find out from you that they're not really Christians. All their dedication for naught.

Dr. Kenneth Miller (devout Christian and renowned biology textbook author): [...] the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures - rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.

[Gman]

The many devout Christians I'm talking about believe God is powerful enough to create a universe sufficient to produce us according to His laws of physics. Pretending that those many people don't exist doesn't make them go away. How sad that only now do they find out from you that they're not really Christians. All their dedication for naught.

IgoFan, I'm sorry but I think you are confused.. Again, if God had a hand in creating the world, then, according to mainline public science definitions, it is NOT scientific. Even if he lifted a finger nail in the creation of the world, it still wouldn't be considered scientific... The entire scientific theory rests on naturalism. Any divine intervention no matter how big or small is automatically ruled out..

Dr. Kenneth Miller (devout Christian and renowned biology textbook author): [...] the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures - rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.

Fit the facts? You think that Darwinian evolution has all the facts? Well it doesn't, it's a complete assumption..

Basically science is about facts, religion is about personal values. Science is the only way of knowledge. Anything that can't be known by science cannot be true (according to naturalism)..

[godslanguage]

The many devout Christians I'm talking about believe God is powerful enough to create a universe sufficient to produce us according to His laws of physics. Pretending that those many people don't exist doesn't make them go away. How sad that only now do they find out from you that they're not really Christians. All their dedication for naught.

The question is not merely whether the laws of physics coupled with chemistry could do it, the question is did it happen entirely without a purpose. Your laws of physics scenario would require as much or more precision input making it indistinguishable from requiring design. That means that if such laws exist then they would require engineering beyond what any "intelligence" can comprehend making Darwinian theory even more false. Ken Miller didn't look that far ahead did he? Intelligent Design at least stays within the boundaries of what known intelligence can produce. With Ken Millers view, God rolled the dice and stopped there, would that support a biblical view of a proactive God who knew the outcome? If so, why would God need to roll dice if he knew the outcome? Seems like in Ken Millers mind God is a big trickster, He just wanted it to look random. Logically, I don't buy this and the bible doesn't either

[IgoFan]

The many devout Christians I'm talking about believe God is powerful enough to create a universe sufficient to produce us according to His laws of physics. Pretending that those many people don't exist doesn't make them go away. How sad that only now do they find out from you that they're not really Christians. All their dedication for naught.

IgoFan, I'm sorry but I think you are confused.. Again, if God had a hand in creating the world, then, according to mainline public science definitions, it is NOT scientific. Even if he lifted a finger nail in the creation of the world, it still wouldn't be considered scientific... The entire scientific theory rests on naturalism. Any divine intervention no matter how big or small is automatically ruled out..

You're STILL avoiding my crucial question: Can someone be a Christian, yet believe God created the laws of physics and then let the universe progress to us from those laws?

Yes or no?

[Gman]

You're STILL avoiding my crucial question: Can someone be a Christian, yet believe God created the laws of physics and then let the universe progress to us from those laws?

Yes or no?

Yes... Of course, but also be aware that people are still going to mix their philosophy into their science. So you are going to have different scientific outcomes due to the philosophical nature of the one performing the science.

[IgoFan]

You're STILL avoiding my crucial question: Can someone be a Christian, yet believe God created the laws of physics and then let the universe progress to us from those laws?

Yes or no?

Yes... Of course, but also be aware that people are still going to mix their philosophy into their science. So you are going to have different scientific outcomes due to the philosophical nature of the one performing the science.

A "Yes"! We're making progress! Christianity is at least consistent with evolution.

So ID creationists can no longer blame evolution on the standard whipping boy, philosophical naturalism (a.k.a. "materialism", or whatever you want to call it), which is intrinsically anti-Christian. And theistic evolution fits poorly here also, because you've agreed that God doesn't HAVE to meddle with physics after the moment of creation. Moreover, almost ALL biologists support evolution, and about 40% of biologists are Christians (if you believe Newsweek's poll). So again, what are those many, many Christian scientists so dang sure of, to think that humans evolved over billions of years under the laws of physics?!

[jlay]

Can someone be a Christian, yet believe God created the laws of physics and then let the universe progress to us from those laws?

That is a loaded question.

You can't specifically answer yes or no, because it begs so many other questions. Believing God created the laws of physics and then let........ etc. does not make one a Christian, or negate one from being a Christian.

If one thinks God created and then let things go randomly, then no, they can not be a Christian in the true sense. The whole of Christianity is about a creator who is intimately involved in the finest details. Afterall, not even a sparrow falls to the ground without his knowledge. All the hairs of your head are numbered, etc. And thus, everything throughout all time was orchestrated for God's glory.
One can believe in a God that set things in motion and then removed himself, but that is not the God of the bible.

All their dedication for naught.

Level of dedication does not determine one's rightness. The 9/11 terrorists were quite determined.

This gets back to gman's position that God is allowed no position. Dawkins had one of the most revealing positions. Why do things that happen through naturalistic means, look like they had a designer?

[Gman]

A "Yes"! We're making progress! Christianity is at least consistent with evolution.

So ID creationists can no longer blame evolution on the standard whipping boy, philosophical naturalism (a.k.a. "materialism", or whatever you want to call it), which is intrinsically anti-Christian. And theistic evolution fits poorly here also, because you've agreed that God doesn't HAVE to meddle with physics after the moment of creation. Moreover, almost ALL biologists support evolution, and about 40% of biologists are Christians (if you believe Newsweek's poll). So again, what are those many, many Christian scientists so dang sure of, to think that humans evolved over billions of years under the laws of physics?!

You are greatly confused.. Again. God DOES have to meddle with physics if we accept theistic evolution before or after the moment of creation... Theistic evolution is considered anti-science by certain scientists.. Not ALL scientists. Materialism or philosophical naturalism says that God did NOT meddle with physics before or after the creation either. Darwinism or neo-Darwinism is a materialist philosophy. Which is a worldview based on the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its current form by impersonal chance. No God required..

There are only two options when it comes to the existence of life.

1. God created it all, (the universe, earth, all biological life, etc..) (Not accepted in the public schools)
2. Chance created it all. (accepted in the public schools)

If there is a third option I would like to hear it...

[IgoFan]

A "Yes"! We're making progress! Christianity is at least consistent with evolution.

So ID creationists can no longer blame evolution on the standard whipping boy, philosophical naturalism (a.k.a. "materialism", or whatever you want to call it), which is intrinsically anti-Christian. And theistic evolution fits poorly here also, because you've agreed that God doesn't HAVE to meddle with physics after the moment of creation. Moreover, almost ALL biologists support evolution, and about 40% of biologists are Christians (if you believe Newsweek's poll). So again, what are those many, many Christian scientists so dang sure of, to think that humans evolved over billions of years under the laws of physics?!

You are greatly confused.. Again. God DOES have to meddle with physics if we accept theistic evolution before or after the moment of creation... Theistic evolution is considered anti-science by certain scientists.. Not ALL scientists. Materialism or philosophical naturalism says that God did NOT meddle with physics before or after the creation either. Darwinism or neo-Darwinism is a materialist philosophy. Which is a worldview based on the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its current form by impersonal chance. No God required..
[...]

You finally answered "yes" to my question; however, now you're backing off that by bringing in a conditional reference to theistic evolution, while saying that God DOES have to occasionally override physics. Which is it? So again ... can a Christian believe that God has NOT overridden the laws of physics after He created the Big Bang? (You DON'T need a definition of theistic evolution to answer the question.)

[Gman]

You finally answered "yes" to my question; however, now you're backing off that by bringing in a conditional reference to theistic evolution, while saying that God DOES have to occasionally override physics. Which is it? So again ... can a Christian believe that God has NOT overridden the laws of physics after He created the Big Bang? (You DON'T need a definition of theistic evolution to answer the question.)

Backing off of what? Good grief IgoFan... I fail to to see where you are going with this or your understanding between philosophy and science... Again, as soon as you start introducing God into your science, no matter how great or how small, you are turning your argument into a theological argument. Theological arguments are simply NOT allowed in the public sector of science... Why? Because some say that is a breech between church and state.. The premises and conclusions are all fixed, there are no other alternatives. You could even say that God created a grain of sand and from this all life was created and STILL be making a theological argument.

It simply doesn't matter the quantity, if he front loaded it, overrode physics, did it before or after the moment of creation. You could even say God went to Burger King and created the universe out of a hamburger.. It DOESN'T matter. As soon as you say anything about God or a god, you are making theological statements, and as soon as you do this you are breaking the naturalistic laws in which Darwinian evolution is based upon and the laws taught in our public schools..

I just don't know how clearer I can make this... I have been talking about how science is taught in schools, not on how one personally perceives it..

[IgoFan]

You finally answered "yes" to my question; however, now you're backing off that by bringing in a conditional reference to theistic evolution, while saying that God DOES have to occasionally override physics. Which is it? So again ... can a Christian believe that God has NOT overridden the laws of physics after He created the Big Bang? (You DON'T need a definition of theistic evolution to answer the question.)

Backing off of what? Good grief IgoFan... I fail to to see where you are going with this or your understanding between philosophy and science... Again, as soon as you start introducing God into your science, no matter how great or how small, you are turning your argument into a theological argument. Theological arguments are simply NOT allowed in the public sector of science... Why? Because some say that is a breech between church and state.. The premises and conclusions are all fixed, there are no other alternatives. You could even say that God created a grain of sand and from this all life was created and STILL be making a theological argument.

It simply doesn't matter the quantity, if he front loaded it, overrode physics, did it before or after the moment of creation. You could even say God went to Burger King and created the universe out of a hamburger.. It DOESN'T matter. As soon as you say anything about God or a god, you are making theological statements, and as soon as you do this you are breaking the naturalistic laws in which Darwinian evolution is based upon and the laws taught in our public schools..

I just don't know how clearer I can make this... I have been talking about how science is taught in schools, not on how one personally perceives it..

I may have braunschweigerforbrains, but are you bothering to read my simple question? Here's a hypothetical question and answer exercise for you:
You ask: Can an atheist believe that Jesus Christ is God? I reply: No. Why do you ask? See how the answer addresses the question? OK, now you try: Can a Christian believe that God has NOT overridden the laws of physics after He created the Big Bang?

[jlay]

Can a Christian believe that God has NOT overridden the laws of physics after He created the Big Bang?

I know this is directed at Gman, but I hope you don't mind my comments.

This question seems to answer itself.

What is Christianity?
That Jesus is the Christ. That His very birth, life and death are an act of God overriding the laws of physics. The virgin birth, water to wine, raising a man from the dead, healing disease, and himself raising from death to life.

The question should be, "How could someone claim to be a "Christian" and not believe that God has overridden the laws of physics?"

[Byblos]

^ .