Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:Isn't Christian Darwinisim an oxymoron?

Bingo.

PaulSacramento wrote:...evolutionary creation as a description of how and when God brought about all the creatures on earth. We do not see God as distant from this process, for God did not just set up the universe at the beginning and let it go. Instead, he upholds the universe moment by moment, sustaining all things by the power of his word. The regular patterns in nature that we call natural laws have their foundation in the regular, faithful governance of God . Thus we believe that God created every species and did it in such a way that we can describe the creation process scientifically. The scientific model of evolution does not replace God as creator any more than the law of gravity replaces God as ruler of the planets.

Sounds like trying to have one's cake and eat it too.

God did not create just one type of flower, but uses the system of evolution to create a huge variety of flowers, of every size, shape, color, and scent.

Conflating. No arguments on variety. TE is not simply an issue of variety.
Paul, I don't think you are a TE, so I'm curious why you are coming across as defending the position?

jlay wrote:I don't mean this as offense to anyone, but I've seen a trend over the last two years on this forum with members almost wanting to embrace TE. And it seems to be motivated by neutralizing the "threat" of having their faith undermined. Well, Silver said it verbatum. I am saddened to hear these type of statements and I doubt my concerns will be rightly understood, as I feel like I am seeing this from a new perspective. After years of this, I find the whole issue a false dichotomy. A discussion that has made the Bible something it is not. Whether Ross or Ham or anywhere in between, I see Satan laughing in the corner at the whole debate. So, pardon me if I don't rejoice in your comfort.

(removed as was over reacting... posted from phone, so don't think I read you in full)

Byblos is Catholic, not at all Evangelical. You are observing apples from oranges.

Scripture doesn't allow for particular kinds of evolution. I find those who are drawn to it were already not clear what the fuss is about from the get go.

When one states they are TE this is as meaningless to me as someone saying they believe in evolution. For example, as a TE is one saying they believe in neodarwinism, or do they just believe God fills in all the gaps with biological evolution where the complexity and restraints cannot be passed naturally? I have contempt for both views. One divorces God from creation so He merely watches, the other wreaks of an unreasonable God of the gaps just to try come to peace with the world of today.

I suppose what I really have been trying to say is that I no longer see evolution as a contradiction to scripture because of a certain interpretation. If if is evolution, great. If it is progressive creation , great. If it is YEC, great. The fact is all stances can be intetpreted into scripture. Now I can cease worrying about how God created the universe and having that cast doubts on my faith and now start exploring other areas and trying now to enrich my relationship with Christ.

Just clarifying what I meant by pointing he out Byblos was Catholic is that the RCC embraces evolution, at least in some Theistic sense. So it shouldn't surprise us that Byblos would be open to it even if he previously was Day Age.

K,
Excellent comments. And yes, I am aware that Byb is RCC. Actaully if I remember he isn't RCC, but is, whatever that means.
I don't know if I'd say the RCC embraces evolution as much as it accomodates the possibility.

Silvertusk wrote:I suppose what I really have been trying to say is that I no longer see evolution as a contradiction to scripture because of a certain interpretation. If if is evolution, great. If it is progressive creation , great. If it is YEC, great. The fact is all stances can be intetpreted into scripture. Now I can cease worrying about how God created the universe and having that cast doubts on my faith and now start exploring other areas and trying now to enrich my relationship with Christ.

You know Silver, I don't so much disagree. Yes all stances can be interpreted INTO scipture, and that was kind of the problem I was driving at.
I see evolution (Darwinism) as much in contradiction with reality as with scripture. If one holds the position that, at its roots, is anti-theistic, and built on question begging, conflating and equivocation, then we must also admit that the Bible accomodates such. And I think K summed it up quite well.

Kurieuo wrote:

jlay wrote:I don't mean this as offense to anyone, but I've seen a trend over the last two years on this forum with members almost wanting to embrace TE. And it seems to be motivated by neutralizing the "threat" of having their faith undermined. Well, Silver said it verbatum. I am saddened to hear these type of statements and I doubt my concerns will be rightly understood, as I feel like I am seeing this from a new perspective. After years of this, I find the whole issue a false dichotomy. A discussion that has made the Bible something it is not. Whether Ross or Ham or anywhere in between, I see Satan laughing in the corner at the whole debate. So, pardon me if I don't rejoice in your comfort.

(removed as was over reacting... posted from phone, so don't think I read you in full)

Byblos is Catholic, not at all Evangelical. You are observing apples from oranges.

Scripture doesn't allow for particular kinds of evolution. I find those who are drawn to it were already not clear what the fuss is about from the get go.

When one states they are TE this is as meaningless to me as someone saying they believe in evolution. For example, as a TE is one saying they believe in neodarwinism, or do they just believe God fills in all the gaps with biological evolution where the complexity and restraints cannot be passed naturally? I have contempt for both views. One divorces God from creation so He merely watches, the other wreaks of an unreasonable God of the gaps just to try come to peace with the world of today.

As far as I can see TE does not believe that God is distance from creation but is imminent in it at all times through the process if evolution.

The thing is K and Jlay, what do you do when the evidence is overwhelming pointing in one direction? Holding contempt for a view is a bit pointless when it seems to be the way life has developed. The evidence has to be answered. You can't just say I don't believe in evolution, because that wont make it go away. I came to Christ because that is the way the evidence was pointing. I would be a hypocrit if I did not do the same for evolution.

Kurieuo wrote:Just clarifying what I meant by pointing he out Byblos was Catholic is that the RCC embraces evolution, at least in some Theistic sense. So it shouldn't surprise us that Byblos would be open to it even if he previously was Day Age.

The Catholic Church doesn't embrace any creation position at all so Catholics are free to adopt any position they wish. As for mine, I was never 'previously' day-age and 'now' TE. In fact the more proper order is that I was TE first, until I came here and learned about day-age and PC. So if anything I've moved away from TE a bit, though I still consider it an option.

Post edit: J, you are correct, I am Catholic from the eastern Rite. Our Church, though in communion with Church of Rome, is not RCC in the strictest sense. But we do agree on essential de fide doctrines.

The thing is K and Jlay, what do you do when the evidence is overwhelming pointing in one direction? Holding contempt for a view is a bit pointless when it seems to be the way life has developed. The evidence has to be answered. You can't just say I don't believe in evolution, because that wont make it go away. I came to Christ because that is the way the evidence was pointing. I would be a hypocrit if I did not do the same for evolution.

ST? You see you are doing it to. This is question begging. I can only conclude that this little book you read (and are promoting) is only contributing to the brain washing.

Byblos wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Just clarifying what I meant by pointing he out Byblos was Catholic is that the RCC embraces evolution, at least in some Theistic sense. So it shouldn't surprise us that Byblos would be open to it even if he previously was Day Age.

The Catholic Church doesn't embrace any creation position at all so Catholics are free to adopt any position they wish. As for mine, I was never 'previously' day-age and 'now' TE. In fact the more proper order is that I was TE first, until I came here and learned about day-age and PC. So if anything I've moved away from TE a bit, though I still consider it an option.

Post edit: J, you are correct, I am Catholic from the eastern Rite. Our Church, though in communion with Church of Rome, is not RCC in the strictest sense. But we do agree on essential de fide doctrines.

However one understands "embrace" to their own. The Catholic Church certainly endorses certain forms of "evolution" as acceptable.

I've studied at a theology college that has spanned three different campuses - Uniting, Anglican and Catholic. And the prevailing position it seemed was evolution in some theistic form. So this is representative of mainstream seminaries then modern priests of today would very likely adopt an evolutionary viewpoint. And this is very much inline also with Pope Benedict who has made various statements on regarding this issue.

So then, all I'm saying is that it is not surprising you, or a general Catholic, would be sympathetic to or even adopt TE. Whereas, an Evangelical Christian (which Hugh Ross, Rich Deem, myself and many others Day-Age are), would not be so ready to embrace TE based on a look at the evidence for Darwinian evolution or what-have-you.

Silvertusk wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

jlay wrote:I don't mean this as offense to anyone, but I've seen a trend over the last two years on this forum with members almost wanting to embrace TE. And it seems to be motivated by neutralizing the "threat" of having their faith undermined. Well, Silver said it verbatum. I am saddened to hear these type of statements and I doubt my concerns will be rightly understood, as I feel like I am seeing this from a new perspective. After years of this, I find the whole issue a false dichotomy. A discussion that has made the Bible something it is not. Whether Ross or Ham or anywhere in between, I see Satan laughing in the corner at the whole debate. So, pardon me if I don't rejoice in your comfort.

(removed as was over reacting... posted from phone, so don't think I read you in full)

Byblos is Catholic, not at all Evangelical. You are observing apples from oranges.

Scripture doesn't allow for particular kinds of evolution. I find those who are drawn to it were already not clear what the fuss is about from the get go.

When one states they are TE this is as meaningless to me as someone saying they believe in evolution. For example, as a TE is one saying they believe in neodarwinism, or do they just believe God fills in all the gaps with biological evolution where the complexity and restraints cannot be passed naturally? I have contempt for both views. One divorces God from creation so He merely watches, the other wreaks of an unreasonable God of the gaps just to try come to peace with the world of today.

As far as I can see TE does not believe that God is distance from creation but is imminent in it at all times through the process if evolution.

The more common form of TE I see embraced is that God was responsible for the initial seeding of life and not throughout any process other than in His divine predetermining of how that seed would unfold.

I'd be interested to know in what ways you feel God is involved in the process? Sometimes what people call TE is more a form of Progressive Creation than Evolution.

Silvertusk wrote:The fact is all stances can be intetpreted into scripture.

All can be interpreted into scripture but not all of them can be true. All false cults such as Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses can also find scriptures to support their beliefs. It is obvious that not all methods of interpreting the Bible are valid or they wouldn't lead to such contradictory results.

The Bible clearly says that the world was created in six days and each of those days consisted of one rotation of the earth on its axis. One of three things must be true: the Bible is inspired by God and he gave us an honest account of how he created the world, the Bible is inspired by God but he lied to us about how he created the world, or the Bible wasn't inspired by God but is merely the opinions of men.

Which of these do you believe?

jlay wrote:Byblos, I certainly understand that, as I've wrestled those positions for a good part of my Christian adult life. And the problem as I see it (and it's simply my opinion) is that what you state is actually the problem. It presumes to resolve contradictions, and harmonize the Bible to the natural world. (what I would call man's wisdom.) I understand that. Oddly this is exactly the same driving force behind Ham whether you want to admit it or not. Just two ends to the same stick. I could even say something very similar if ST had said, 'I've finally resolved to be a literal 6 day, 6,000 year creationist.' Either way, some authority outside the scripture is pressuring.

The thing is, neither has to drive the other. Many assume that the problem is reconciling the Bible with Science and the fact is that it's not a matter of reconciling the Bible with science. The Bible is a a source and science is an interpretation of nature. What many miss, I believe, is that the Bible is already in harmony with nature. Both find their source in God. Christians far too often claim they're elevating the Bible when in fact they're mistaking the Bible for Theology. The Bible and Theology are not necessarily the same thing. Theology can and should change when there is good reason for it to change. Theology adjusting is not the same thing as denying the Bible.

Science changes pretty easily because it's designed to adjust and move with increased information. Theology changes much more slowly, and that's understandable because information in this realm itself is more static, however Natural Theology is a legitimate source and when it adjusts it's perfectly in line to compare it with Theology drawn from revelation. It's also perfectly in line to recognize that revealed truth was revealed in a culture and scientific context that was different than today and not attempt to fit it into a mold it was never intended to fill.

In the end, as has been expressed here by many, it seems to come down to a personal preference on the part of someone as to what they are most comfortable embracing for a reason that comes within themselves. Ken Ham has made it very clear that he sees his Theology and the Bible as effectively the same thing. Anything that threatens his theology, threatens the Bible and there's no middle ground. He's willing to to write off science and attempt to retrofit it to his predetermined understanding and if it requires standing on his head to say that black is white, then he will do so and make that a virtue because it validates his theology which is in his approach the same thing as the Bible.

In fairness the same thing can happen in other directions. Theistic evolution just tends to take science as the authority in terms of the natural and then separates the Bible as authoritative in spiritual matters with those things in the natural world that it speaks of being reduced to mythology or incomplete attributions of cause with no real explanation as to the "how." Not all theistic evolutionists however do this in the sense that science is their ultimate authority and too, not all Young Earth Creationists are as dogmatic and unyielding as Ken Ham.

I tend to see OEC as a more reasonable middle than YEC or TE, and yet that may simply be self-serving from my own perspective. I don't think so, of course, but then if I'm not willing to concede that possibility than I err in the same possible manner that I point to on the opposite ends of the spectrum my interpretation is creating.

Silvertusk wrote:The thing is K and Jlay, what do you do when the evidence is overwhelming pointing in one direction? Holding contempt for a view is a bit pointless when it seems to be the way life has developed. The evidence has to be answered. You can't just say I don't believe in evolution, because that wont make it go away. I came to Christ because that is the way the evidence was pointing. I would be a hypocrit if I did not do the same for evolution.

You haven't mentioned anything of what your are accepting when you say "evolution". So it is all meaningless to me saying the evidence is overwhelming in one direction.

Here is the thing. I believe in evolution. I just don't give an open license to have the dominating secular view of the day hoodwink me out of believing God progressively created many "species" directly, which the evidence supports whether one looks at the fossil record or at biochemistry.

Theophilis wrote:
The Bible clearly says that the world was created in six days and each of those days consisted of one rotation of the earth on its axis. One of three things must be true: the Bible is inspired by God and he gave us an honest account of how he created the world, the Bible is inspired by God but he lied to us about how he created the world, or the Bible wasn't inspired by God but is merely the opinions of men.

Which of these do you believe?

Theophilis, of course God gave us an honest account in scripture. The problem is that you think if one doesn't hold to your literal and concrete six 24 hour days, then one's belief calls God a liar. So, with that being said, I'll choose number 4. I believe your INTERPRETATION of the bible is wrong, and your INTERPRETATION is not the same as the scripture itself. Your six 24 hour day belief is an opinion of men, just like any other interpretation of the text.

Theophilis, the bible doesn't clearly say that the world was created in six 24 hour days. The text says 6 "yoms". There is more than one LITERAL meaning of yom.

Just because you or anyone else says your interpretation is clearly the correct one, that doesn't make it so.

Kurieuo wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:The thing is K and Jlay, what do you do when the evidence is overwhelming pointing in one direction? Holding contempt for a view is a bit pointless when it seems to be the way life has developed. The evidence has to be answered. You can't just say I don't believe in evolution, because that wont make it go away. I came to Christ because that is the way the evidence was pointing. I would be a hypocrit if I did not do the same for evolution.

You haven't mentioned anything of what your are accepting when you say "evolution". So it is all meaningless to me saying the evidence is overwhelming in one direction.

Here is the thing. I believe in evolution. I just don't give an open license to have the dominating secular view of the day hoodwink me out of believing God progressively created many "species" directly, which the evidence supports whether one looks at the fossil record or at biochemistry.

Sorry I am not understanding what you are getting at. I am talking about the Theory of Evolution. What else would I be talking about. Common descent, natural selection, speciation, micro and macro.

Also where is the evidence that supports progressive creation? That is a genuine enquiry by the way and not me being flippant.