Evidence for God from Science

I love Lewis. I just don't pretend that he was anything more than he was, a very bright thinker, strong communicator and very flawed human being (as are we all ...) If Lewis were alive today and invited some of the Christians who laud him to his upper room apartment for a beer and to smoke a pipe or to his home on the weekend where they could observe the state of his relationships (depending upon the time) and Lewis went to their Church, Lewis would be up on charges the very next day and forbidden from teaching in their church. Just speaking the truth. That's a fact.

You are full of surprises, Bart! As we all are painfully aware, I have a tendancy to be just a tad bit more dogmatic than you, so I can imagine the look of shock that will cross your face as you find that I do hold all theistic evolutionists to be in error. Yes, that includes oure beloved C. S. Lewis (but, hey, the man also thought you could lose your salvation).

Perhaps what needs defining is not the terms "evolution" and such, but rather the implications of "error." Certainly we should not say that to be in error on this issue is to not be a Christian. But I openly confess that I do not see any way in which an evolutionary process can be reconciled with Scripture. To the degree I am sympathetic with OEC (as defined and defended by Ross), I would firmly hold to and require special creation as I think that much is evident in the text itself.

Clearly, though, this is a secondary doctrine--it won't send you to heaven or hell. Thus, I see no need to break fellowship with anyone over it. I would be concerned with the hermeneutical principles that were applied to get to the position in the first place, and what that would do when applied consistently to the rest of the Bible, but I suppose that's another issue altogether.

No shock there Jac, and you're kind to just refer to your tendency toward the more dogmatic compared to me as just a "tad." I'm fully expecting to be taken to task one day for my moves toward somewhat more moderate positions even over the past couple of years.

However, we're essentially in agreement. It's not an essential issue although it does have important ramifications upon the issues you state. I'd go so far however as to say that none of the camps identified, YEC, OEC or Theistic Evolution (which some see as a subset of OEC) has a complete lock on objectively being "true" based upon either the scientific evidence (although obviously I think that clearly supports OEC). More to the point, it's a question of hermeneutics and the issue there is more one of consistency within one's espoused framework.

Theistic Evolution does, to my way of thinking, reason backwards and seeks to reconcile with science being made primary and scripture tacked in where possible. That said however, I can't exclude its possibility. I simply don't see sufficient evidence in nature or exegetically to necessitate a jump to that extreme.

Jac3510 wrote:Byblos' question struck me as just a little on the incredulous (sp?) side.

Like Bart said I don't hold to TE either but I'd be lying if I didn't say I saw merits in it. Merits not in the scientific sense (like you Jac I'm no scientist) but in the philosophical sense (unlike you Jac I'm no philosopher either).

The one thing that keeps me drawn to TE is, believe it or not, the question of free will. What if God intended for the universe to have some sort of free will as well? Not insomuch as winding a clock and letting it go but interfering in it when necessary. I do see merits in it and will not dismiss it or consider it in error.

I thought the use of "tad" would highlight the understatement . . . shoulda added a winkie!

But, I believe we are in overall agreement. And if you are to be taken to task over your moderateness, I'll be taken to task still more over my reactions to disagreement. We all have our faults, and I am accutely aware of mine in this area . . .

Anyway, sorry for the rabbit-trail. Carry on as if I hadn't stuck my nose in where it didn't belong

Canuckster1127 wrote:I love Lewis. I just don't pretend that he was anything more than he was, a very bright thinker, strong communicator and very flawed human being (as are we all ...) If Lewis were alive today and invited some of the Christians who laud him to his upper room apartment for a beer and to smoke a pipe or to his home on the weekend where they could observe the state of his relationships (depending upon the time) and Lewis went to their Church, Lewis would be up on charges the very next day and forbidden from teaching in their church. Just speaking the truth. That's a fact.

Gman wrote:
Plus we wouldn't want to tick off cslewislover....

Sorry... Couldn't resist.

At first I was a little offended, but hey, he's my man. I guess that Christians that believe the bible are pretty much conisidered "evangelicals" these days, so I'd be one. But, I'd absolutely love to sit in an easy chair with Lewis, at his fireplace, drinking his scotch or whatever, and tyring out his pipe tobacco. I'm not sure that I'd like living with him, however, as he never cleaned up (he had cats, too) and liked to keep the curtains closed all of the time. But Joy loved him; she came and cleaned things up (I probably would've done that too ^_^).

I'm not sure that evangelicals are quite as stuffy as you make them, Bart, although I haven't read all of Lewis' letters yet (you'd think I'd want to rush to do that ). I was under the impression that once he became a Christian, Lewis straightened up his act with the opposite sex. That's my impression, maybe I'm wrong. He's said that his biggest sin and/or regret was how he treated his father. Anyway, people love him so much because he reached out and loved them, and I would think they'd accept some of his flaws, just as they did when he was alive. *shrugs*

As far as Theistic Evolutionists, if some are basically deists, they would be in error, no? I need to read Rich's stuff over again, and look into it a bit more. I read Collin's book, but it's been a while. That's one part I remember that he said: God set things in motion and then left, at least until the first humans were baked enough. God's involvement then gets fuzzy. That's what I remember.

No Offense intended and I should have prefaced my comments about the reaction to Lewis as "some" rather than the assumed "all."

Some of the assumptions about Lewis' personal life are just that, assumptions. I'd love to sit and speak with Lewis as well. There's no question however that before his conversion he was living in a domestic situation which would be considered immoral and it can be argued that his conduct changed at some point, but his living arrangements didn't and it was an issue he took great pains to keep private from his friends, colleagues and even his brother, who lived with him for long stretched.

His relationship with Joy is sometimes stated as having contributed to his loss of close relationship with Tolkien later in life, but I tend to believe there was more at work there, including the internal politics at the college and other friendships that Lewis established that Tolkien wasn't as open to as Lewis.

Lewis' formal marriage to Joy required a renegade Anglican Priest due to her divorce.

That combined with Lewis' personal habits in smoking and drinking is what I was referring to, and not to gossip, but just to point out that many who appeal to Mere Christianity, the Narnia Chronicles and others often don't know the irony with some of their positions with regard to personal holiness (as they see it anyway) and Lewis' personal walk and struggles.

Frankly, I'm more inclined to accept Lewis as he is and respect him while seeing the warts and flaws because frankly, I've got them too and while it doesn't excuse my flaws, I think as Christians we spend too much time and effort trying to hide them and deny we have them than to live more transparently with one another and accept that they are there. That's heresy sadly in many churches, but so be it.

Lewis isn't any better or any worse than any of us in the end. We're all sinners saved by grace.

Canuckster1127 wrote:No Offense intended and I should have prefaced my comments about the reaction to Lewis as "some" rather than the assumed "all."

Some of the assumptions about Lewis' personal life are just that, assumptions. I'd love to sit and speak with Lewis as well. There's no question however that before his conversion he was living in a domestic situation which would be considered immoral and it can be argued that his conduct changed at some point, but his living arrangements didn't and it was an issue he took great pains to keep private from his friends, colleagues and even his brother, who lived with him for long stretched.

I was wondering if his unedited letters revealed anything more about his relationship with Minto after he became a Christian, not that it matters to me. (But that certainly would be a difficulty in his acceptance by others to preach, I would think.) He was already in the relationship, and had a responsibility to her. I read that she was angry that he became a Christian . . . whatever all that refers to, I don't know.

His relationship with Joy is sometimes stated as having contributed to his loss of close relationship with Tolkien later in life, but I tend to believe there was more at work there, including the internal politics at the college and other friendships that Lewis established that Tolkien wasn't as open to as Lewis.

Lewis' formal marriage to Joy required a renegade Anglican Priest due to her divorce.

This really bothers me about the church at that time. Today it wouldn't be an issue, since Joy's husband was an adulterer many times over. He was also very violent.

That combined with Lewis' personal habits in smoking and drinking is what I was referring to, and not to gossip, but just to point out that many who appeal to Mere Christianity, the Narnia Chronicles and others often don't know the irony with some of their positions with regard to personal holiness (as they see it anyway) and Lewis' personal walk and struggles.

Frankly, I'm more inclined to accept Lewis as he is and respect him while seeing the warts and flaws because frankly, I've got them too and while it doesn't excuse my flaws, I think as Christians we spend too much time and effort trying to hide them and deny we have them than to live more transparently with one another and accept that they are there. That's heresy sadly in many churches, but so be it.

Lewis isn't any better or any worse than any of us in the end. We're all sinners saved by grace.

Yes. He's a great example of a human being like us (but really smart, lol), but one who devoted his life to the Lord. That's the thing. Also, he gave a ton to the needy and was always ready to help someone. In my view, he risked much to write all he did regarding faith and the Lord. And, in the end, he did lose his job.

What about the idea that the creation may bear the resemblence of having developed and yet we ceratinly wouldn't take that as being any evidence of non-involvement of God? SInce when does the philosophy of naturalism dictate to us whether God created in a certain way? Sould we reject a mechanism purely because of the philosophy behind it?

As many of you have stated, the evidence is not as convincing as the naturalists might like. But that being said, does it negate the possibility? While I disfavor the deist perspective, that has more to do with the scripture showing God being intimately involved. I don't agree with COllins about his deist idea but I don't necessarily reject a process throughout creation.

I can't speak for anyone else, zoe, but I reject both the philosophy and the mechanism for Scriptural reasons. I can take on the philosophy on a philosophical level, and I can respond to the mechanism, to a lesser degree, on a scientific level, but even if those were taken away, I still stand on Scripture.

Claearly, scripture doesn't outline the creation of all of the organisms. If God created in any sort of progressive stages (more in line with PC than YEC, I knowthat) that certainly it could appear more transitive that it was. (just, forinstance as we see wth automobile design and devlopemtn).

Certainly, but when people talk of evolution, they don't just mean of bacteria and such. They think, rightfully, of the obvious: how birds and dogs and cats and people got here.

And I'm not denying that....I'm saying that suppose God in His wisdom created progressively such that the evidence we see looks remarkebly suggestive of...hmmm...evolution. NOw obviously you would reject this because you have argued against an old earth interpretation of Genesis. I'm just saying that someone could believe in the progression seen in the fossil record and believe that God used mutations to develop what we see.

In that argument they are not deists. (Ad really they are not theistic evolutionists) but they would look at the evidence and perhaps see the same process, just not the randomness or natralism.

But the fact remains that if they believed in evolution because it looked like God did it that way they would still be in error because God did not in fact do it that way, based on the very wording of your own example.

Regardless of any arguments I have made with reference to OEC, it's pretty clear that a plain reading of Scripture presents special creation, not evolution, as the means by which God created. Now, if you insist on allegorizing or spiritualizing the text, then fine. But in that case, you can make the text mean anything you want after all. Maybe "God" is just a symbol for "the way life is," etc.

That's why I said, for Scriptural reasons, I reject evolution as a mechanism and as a philosophy. It has nothing to do with the age of the earth. It has to do with Genesis' system of special creation (and again, note that Ross himself even holds to that--OEC punctuated by acts of special creation by God).

Jac3510 wrote:Certainly, but when people talk of evolution, they don't just mean of bacteria and such. They think, rightfully, of the obvious: how birds and dogs and cats and people got here.

"People" may in general but when scientists do they're using the term much more specifically.

There's a broad definition and then a more narrow technical definition.

The broad definition of evolution incorporates the philosophical position of methodological naturalism exclusive of any supernatural intervention through the mechanism of natural selection.

The narrow definition of evolution does not necessarily preclude the mechanism being used in the hands of God, but then science is not equipped to answer that question (although ID attempts to do so) as supernatural influence is by definition outside the realm of science to measure or observe. If we could, it would then cease to supernatural.

There would be a spectrum even within Theistic Evolution which would allow for active participation in the process by God on the one end and then traditional Deism on the other.

Again, I don't see it as necessary and I don't think the evidence requires Theistic Evolution as a likely solution, but neither do I see it as necessarily precluded. I think it falls into something we don't know and perhaps even can't know definitively.