Evidence for God from Science

That's not a bad approach godslanguage.

I take a similar approach on some non-cardinal theological issues where I believe there is room to allow for some mystery and to realize there are some areas where it simply is not possible to claim full knowledge and understanding.

I take a stronger stand on the YEC and OEC issues because relative to those I believe it is more cut and dry. Further, despite the fact that I know it is God who draws people to himself and not our responsibility to do anything but be obedient to His commission, I know that there are a tremendous amount of people for whom the YEC approach is a stumbling block and it places a barrier between them and the Gospel.

We will always be accused of being fools or foolish by the world and that is something God and Christ have told us to expect. That doesn't mean however that that makes it a virtue to make a selection of which position to accept solely on the basis of what seems the most foolish to the world. We had better be pretty convinced that it is truth and that we aren't repeating some of the mistakes of the past where the Church has taken a position only to be shown later that they were interpreting the scriptures wrongly. Unfortunately, in that case many look upon the Church from the outside and they simply make the assumption that the whole system is foolish.

That said however, those of us on the OEC side do have to be wary of jumping at every scientific change that comes down the pike. We need to remember that our position is based first in Scripture and that we believe Science, rightly understood, will confirm the Scriptures where they have common ground.

YEC proponents achilles heel, in my opinion is that they will be so zealous in their desire to uphold Scripture over everything they will develop and contort their positions to such extremes as to go beyond what the Scriptures themselves say and in so doing begin to add to the Scriptures and faith and make the Gospel inaccessible to some and also break fellowship with fellow believers who disagree with them in this area but yet are fully Christians in every other sense and that must grieve the Holy Spirit.

I think those are two extremes however and my observation is that with continued discussion and working through the issues, most Christians find some ground in the middle. The science involved and some of the theology involved is not familiar to a majority of people and they tend to decide on a basis that is less than fully informed.

zoegirl wrote:Atheist scientists do not acknowlege God, science is neutral.

Regarding science as neutral, we know there is no neutrality with God. My contention and many (no one in particular) on this board agree, that science in imperfect, and sees darkly. God is truth and not partial truth, God is light and not partial light.

1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.

Regarding the neutrality of science, the following excerpts are from the book The Battle of Beginnings by Dr. D. Ratzsch :

(p.122) First, Popper was driven to the conclusion that the judgement of whether or not something constitutes legitimate empirical data is not forced on us by nature but is in part a result of human choice. If so, empirical data will not be as purely objective as once thought. Second, Kuhn argued that the paradigm one accepted affected one's perception. If so, empirical data are not as neutral, independent and dictated by nature as once thought...

For centuries perception and observation were thought to be purely passive processess...As it turns out, that apparantly is not the case. There is more of the observer involved than just mechanically operating sensory faculties, and that involvement, although perhaps preconscious, is an active involvement.

Then later:

for while we can indeed impose whatever restriction we wish, what we cannot do is then without further argument claim that the results of following those restrictions will be truth, approximate truth, self-correction or anything of the sort.

zoegirl wrote: I disagree...we are recapturing truth. We are deciding what is true NOT BASED ON REJECTING WHAT THE ATHEIST BELIEVES BUT RATHER WHAT WE ARE OBSERVING IN BOTH THE CREATION AND SCRIPTURE.

Anyone who trys to "recapture" truth is trying to recapture God and I question if it can be done using secular methods. The truth is, God loves us and has died for our sins. Science will never discover this fundemental truth. Really who has the authority to decide what is truth? God has revealed the truth in His word. Only He has the authority to declare what is truth. Further God has given us the method to understand truth. It is in the hearing of the word through the leading of the Holy Spirit. If one chooses another method, one walks down a blind alley.

Do not proclaim our motives in examining and deciding on ideas.

I apologize but this comment is directed to you Zoegirl. It appears in the above comments you are speaking for the group as in "we" but you chastise me for addressing the group. Its not easy to depersonalize my comments when so much criticism is directed toward me personally. (I am not accusing you or anyone - its a general comment) - I will try to abide by this rule - if I say "you" it is generic and impersonal. If I say "z/g" or "zoegirl" it is personal.

It has been pointed out in several places that these issues are non-cardinal. I guess that means one is not going to lose his salvation over whether one thinks the earth is old or young or appears old. That may be true, but the issue is important for many reasons which I would like to begin to address here.

godslanguage wrote:the question is how does this affect the present state?

If I claim to believe God, and then I declare my interpretation of the word has been wrong for 2000 years, I affect the credibility of the church and the validity of the word. Soon unblievers will say and are already saying, if you were wrong about that how can I trust you about salvation and other truly cardinal issues.

If I knew how or cared how old the earth is or how long it took for God to create, would that affect my faith in Jesus Christ, would that pose a threat?

Maybe it would strengthen ones faith. (I don't what is meant by "threat")

simply that I know that God created and I could care less how long he took to do it.

On the surface this appears as a reasonable perspective. But if one were to say "Jesus walked on water and I don't care how he did it" and another said "yes, the disciples looked out of the boat and saw Jesus utilizing the principle of "blahblah" to counteract weak atomic force while bending the fabric of space-time into a anti-gravitational "suchandsuch"." Suddenly its no longer a miracle. One day maybe we can do it given the right knowledge and technology.

IF for some reason we had very strong evidence for a young earth, then people would look for new debates and ask why it took God 6 days and not 6 seconds to create...and vice versa.

There is an article on this website already asking that question. There is no debate about why. It was within God's purpose to do in six days.

PLain and simple...I find it terribly judgmental to label some Christians as letting doubt in their minds and needing to repent simply because some want to examine HOW God created the universe. You do not know their/our hearts and therefore do not know whether we doubt GOd.

I agree with Canuckster and godslanguage in that this should not be an issue. I may disagree on whether it is YEC, OEC, progressive creationism or not, but I would not deem it something to call for repentance. It is a shame, though, that this is not the case with all.

forum monk wrote:I claim to believe God, and then I declare my interpretation of the word has been wrong for 2000 years, I affect the credibility of the church and the validity of the word. Soon unblievers will say and are already saying, if you were wrong about that how can I trust you about salvation and other truly cardinal issues

God's word can withstand our correction of our frailties. Many, many instances of bad application of scripture (women, slavery, child abuse...) and yet it can only strengthen the Church when it admits an incorrect interpretation of scripture. What about the damage it does if the church sticks to incorrect views simply because of fear? Sticking to bad ideas because we think it makes our position strong in reality does nothing but show others we are afraid to look at our own position.

Recapturing truth refers to taking back science, looking at the data and not rejecting it simply because those awful atheists have some interesting data.

zoegirl wrote:PLain and simple...I find it terribly judgmental to label some Christians as letting doubt in their minds and needing to repent simply because some want to examine HOW God created the universe. You do not know their/our hearts and therefore do not know whether we doubt GOd.

One should not automatically assume a call to repentence is a condemnation of sin. Even God repented and we know He does not sin:

Genesis 6:6
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Genesis 6:7
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Exodus 32:14
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

1 Samuel 15:35
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Repentence is a turning of ways or a change in thinking. But the turning away is more than that, it is a turning toward God at the same time. So if I issue a call to turn from wrong thinking, a call to change ones mind and put the mind on God, I should not be condemned. I feel we should all be doing so daily. If one feels they do not need to repent it is between that one and God.

As for doubt, are there some here who think that people do not doubt that God created the heavens and earth? I said of the miracle of creation, it was:

so unique it would leave no doubt to believer and unbeliever that God is God. I guess in these last days, doubt has still managed to overcome many.

It is not condemnation! It is remorse. I pains me that man in his arrogance no longer considers the creative act a unique and wholly miraculous act of God.

I call for repentance and a change in thinking. I stand by my words.

On the surface this appears as a reasonable perspective. But if one were to say "Jesus walked on water and I don't care how he did it" and another said "yes, the disciples looked out of the boat and saw Jesus utilizing the principle of "blahblah" to counteract weak atomic force while bending the fabric of space-time into a anti-gravitational "suchandsuch"." Suddenly its no longer a miracle. One day maybe we can do it given the right knowledge and technology.

No that is not what I meant, in your example my position would be Jesus did walk on water and it was a miracle, however it wouldn't be exactly a confilct for me if he walked on the water on Monday from 6pm - 7pm or on Friday for 2 minutes at any given time. I thought the thread was about the time it takes and the miracle performed based on the time.

There is an article on this website already asking that question. There is no debate about why. It was within God's purpose to do in six days.

Yes, Gods purpose was to do it in six days but then again that goes back into the literal interpretation of the word Yom again. See, the problem is that we know that science isn't at a perfect state and still we arrogantly try to match every detail in science to correspond with the bible, even though we know that science is limited and is dynamic. The only thing I believe we can do is look at the universe in its current state, it will show evidence of design, it will demonstrate Gods caring for us as well as his relationship with us, it will demonstrate Gods divine power, as described in the bible ofcourse.

forum monk wrote: I pains me that man in his arrogance no longer considers the creative act a unique and wholly miraculous act of God.

Who here has said anything remotely about the creation not being a miraculous act?! Yes, unbelievers may and certainly some Christians may, but no one here ( to my knowledge) has said anything to this effect.

Again, discussing the HOW of the creative act does not exclude or somehow change the fact that it WAS a wholly miraculous act.

Even if we think that some time in the future we could manipulate the forces in water by understanding the forces and knowing how the strengthen the forces does not diminish the fact that Christ could do this simply by an act of His will!! He is not some superhero but the Lord! If that is how He walked of water then it is still a miracle (He could have done this any possible way, He is not limited). It's now as if we can simply command the water to support us.

I may be able to appreciate Beethoven's symphony and get a glimpse of how he put together his themes, but couldn't recreate his works. COnsicdering the vast gulf between God and mankind, any thought to how He did it does not remove the mystery or grandeur of the fact that He did.

There was a great joke I thought was on the website about a conversation between God and a scientist. In response to the scientists boasting about the fact that they could now create humans, God poses a challenge to make a man. When the scientist reaches down for a clump of dirt, God says "Hey, make your own dirt".

We can be woefully arrogant. But posing questions about how God created the universe should never remove the gradeur of the act. (if it does, then that is simply a mark of our supreme arrogance and ignorance)

"Hey, make your own dirt".

This is one of the reasons I believe we should all support intelligent design, whether you are TE, OEC or YEC. God created all the particles and elements in existence. Its not as though we have biological complexity and it stops at that point. The less or more complex something is doesn't make it less designed, its simply design all the way. If you don't support a theory like intelligent design, this is where I start to wonder how you (not referring to anyone specifically here) can believe in anything the bible says, since God is the designer.

godslanguage wrote:"Hey, make your own dirt".

This is one of the reasons I believe we should all support intelligent design, whether you are TE, OEC or YEC. God created all the particles and elements in existence. Its not as though we have biological complexity and it stops at that point. The less or more complex something is doesn't make it less designed, its simply design all the way. If you don't support a theory like intelligent design, this is where I start to wonder how you (not referring to anyone specifically here) can believe in anything the bible says, since God is the designer.

Intelligent Design is a little more involved than simply claiming God created and designed the world.

Intelligent design asserts that you can create a viable case for Intelligent design solely upon the basis of the physical evidence and further completely limited to the use of science.

There are plenty of Christians who would completely support the idea of Creation without making the further assertion that natural science is sufficient to identify that there is intelligence behind design.

On the basis of pure science, for example I'm not convinced that Intelligent Design is a viable theory. That's not because I don't believe in God and His creation obviously, because I passionately do. It's because I don't believe attempting to limit our knowledge to science in this manner is needed or valid. My belief is first and foremost on the basis of Scripture. Science ties in secondarily for me after that. I think what Intelligent Design is, as I've watched it develop, is coming more from lawyers and activists who want to find another means to promote the idea in the public schools and they're trying to make it fit a purely scientific means to try and get the courts to accept it. I think personally, that gives away too much.

I think we should be identifying those portions of the science teaching in the schools today that is not purely scientific and insisting that it be removed if historic christian faith cannot be referenced so there is an equal standard maintained. If both elements have to be removed from science that would suit me fine. Either ignore both or expose both within the context of a more appropriate class such as History or philosophy.

I'm a minority in that regard even among OEC proponents, but I think ID has some flaws in its approach and that it gives away too much.

zoegirl wrote: Even if we think that some time in the future we could manipulate the forces in water by understanding the forces and knowing how the strengthen the forces does not diminish the fact that Christ could do this simply by an act of His will!! He is not some superhero but the Lord! If that is how He walked of water then it is still a miracle (He could have done this any possible way, He is not limited). It's now as if we can simply command the water to support us.

This exact scenario played out in Egypt -
Exodus 7:10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: 12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs. 13 Yet Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the LORD had said.

Notice that God's miracle no longer impressed Pharaoh when his own magicians appeared to duplicate the event. The same will happen if someone finally walks on water. The world will say, so Jesus walked on water. Big deal that guy can do it too. It doesn't matter anymore if God did it a different way. It loses its uniqueness and God's glory is diminished in the eyes of the world.

zoegirl wrote: Who here has said anything remotely about the creation not being a miraculous act?! Yes, unbelievers may and certainly some Christians may, but no one here ( to my knowledge) has said anything to this effect.

I read those links from this website that are pasted in all these threads, so I have extracted examples to illustrate the point that the suggestion is made many times the creation and the flood was not necessarily miraculous. (note the texts are not cited but all are found in articles on this website)

It could have been supernatural according to this quote and then again, maybe not

Hebrew word asah translated "made" suggests that God formed the separation from materials that already existed, rather than creating it brand new. As such, the formation could involve both supernatural and natural processes. If the separation was allowed to form on its own, it would be expected that the second day could be a very long period of time.

Nothing miraculous about tectonic activity. It happens everyday.

According to the Psalm, "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which Thou didst establish for them."11 The description suggests that God used some form of tectonic activity to form the dry land. If tectonic activity were used by God to form the dry land, it would suggest that the beginning of the third day would be a very long period of time.

No miracle even suggested here -

This verb tells us that God used processes identical to what we see on the earth today. Plants spouted, grew to maturity, and produced seeds.

I fail to see this logic -

You might say that God could have caused everything to happen super-quick. However, God says, "Let the earth sprout vegetation..." and the text says, "And the earth brought forth vegetation..." In order to claim that God miraculously created all the plants, seed, etc. in 24-hours, one would have to claim God was a liar. Not a good accusation to make! So we know that the second part of the third day was at least several years long.

No miracle required for this -

The text indicates that God planted a garden. This garden was not planted full-grown, since the text says that the trees were caused to sprout or grow (Hebrew tsamach30). The amount of time allowed for the garden to grow is not stated, but would presumably take longer than 24-hours. After the garden had grown sufficiently, the man was placed into the garden to cultivate it.31 By this time, the trees were producing fruit so that Adam could eat.32 This process takes a period of time greater than 24 hours.

Well apparently some theistic evolutions believe in miracles but not all -

In the theistic evolutionist's view natural selection and the transmutation of species are seen as the tooling used to bring about higher and higher life forms. Here, usually, God does not supernaturally intervene at any point, although convictions do differ widely and it would be quite wrong to say that all who believe in "evolution" deny the intervention of the miraculous.

The bible says god formed them from the dust of the earth not from other creatures. In my opinion, this quotation contradicts itself -

progressive creationism. It is fair to say it lies in between theistic evolution and young earth creationism, drawing some points from both but always insisting on the input of an Intelligent Designer. It agrees with the former in believing that there was a much longer time frame than six twenty-four hour periods and holds that each new life form was not, necessarily, created out of nothing, or out of previously non-living material. Or at least that the "template" of previously existing life is used again - with adjustments. It agrees with the latter, not only in affirming the verbal inspiration of the Bible, but that God was present at every stage of the creation of life and that every new life form was a deliberate and miraculous act of God.

If the PC does not believe this perhaps the PC does not believe in a God of miracles -

The progressive creationist does not accept that "flood geology" can even begin to explain the rich geological order of the earth and its fossils. Land masses arise gradually as a result of volcanic activity and plate tectonics. These wrinkle the earth's surface and, after the added effects of erosion, create the geological strata. As plate tectonics and volcanic activity superseded erosion land masses rose above the ocean to cover about 30% of the earth's surface. It is from these forces that we get the geological formations we have, not enormous earth shattering events triggered by a deluge of the kind the "flood geologists" envisage.

Coral reefs, for instance, are very fragile and could never survive this deluge.

This is untenable in many ways - see the Case for the Global Flood in these threads -

The progressive creationist holds to the conviction that the Genesis flood was regional

I guess its too big of a problem for God to have dealt with -

I doubt whether many Christians have ever thought through the implications of a fully universal flood. The number of species in the world is almost infinitely vaster than those animals on show at the zoo. What happened to the thousands of species dependent on fresh water then mixed with salt? What happened to all the flora of the earth crushed under 9 kilometers of water (if indeed the Flood covered even Mount Everest)!

It's vitally important in my opinion. This is intentional misdirection -

It is reported that certain pseudogenes, caused by copying "errors" are found in the exact locus spots of the DNA molecule in both humans and chimpanzees. This suggests a link of DNA information but is no proof of the transmutation of species. Whether there is a descending biological link with a huge intervention by God to produce a new species (in this case man) is not important. It is clear from the evidence God did use the same "template" - with adjustments - and I am not insulted!

Dear Lord! Why did you not tell us the truth?

Yes, "God formed man of the dust of the ground". The word "formed" implies a process, and we need not see God forming man like we would put together a gingerbread man. "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field". The same word "formed" is used and the human body has the physics of the universe in it.

The word formed could refer to cellular ancestry.

This is genetic engineering - not miracles

The rib which the Lord God had taken from the man He made into a woman.... God changed the "xy" factor and by doing so gave modern man a very good hint of progression in creation through the intervention of the Creator adjusting the DNA makeup.

Forum Monk,

I think you're imagining that having some form of understanding of how something took place or happened would in and of itself negate God's Power, Majesty or Glory.

Simply seeking to understand something for the truth of it, where such a thing is possible, doesn't necessarily procede from a motive to make that which is miraculous, commonplace and by so doing it diminish either the "need" for God to have done it or His wonders in doing it.

What someone does with that truth is a step removed from the truth itself.

It seems to me that you're supposing that the very act of seeking knowlege or understanding which thus puts the majesty of God at risk is in and of itself undesirable.

I don't see that threat. I believe our ability and desire to learn, is found within the image of God itself placed upon us. Certainly ot can be abused and used to imagine that God is not present or necessary. Babel is a good example of that from the past. It doesn't follow then that any such desire for understanding or explanation that proceeds is wrong or dangerous.

God doesn't call upon us to protect His Majesty, His Glory or His Mystery. Those are immutable characteristics of God that exist independent of anything we do or don't do. As Christians, there is nothing wrong with increasing knowledge and even perhaps seeking to understand some things as to how God may have done some things, assuming he worked through means that science can examine or form a theory on based upon evidence that might exist. It needed diminish from our awe and appreciation of His creative genius and frankly, the irony to me, is the more we learn and think we know, and the deeper we delve, the more amazed I am and the more questions that arise that point to His power, majesty and Glory.

Blessings,

Bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:I think you're imagining that having some form of understanding of how something took place or happened would in and of itself negate God's Power, Majesty or Glory.

Think about that. I believe if I understood how God performed the virgin birth, healing the blind man, walked on water, etc, etc. Yes it would diminish the glory. If one knew how a magician performed a particular illusion (like David Blaine's street levitation) the impact of the illusion is negated. Even more so for miracles which are not mere illusions.

Simply seeking to understand something for the truth of it, where such a thing is possible, doesn't necessarily procede from a motive to make that which is miraculous, commonplace and by so doing it diminish either the "need" for God to have done it or His wonders in doing it.

I did not speak of motives in my posts. I don't believe any christian in his right mind deliberately seeks to diminish God's testimony. But I do believe Christians (myself included) do it inadvertantly too often.

What someone does with that truth is a step removed from the truth itself.

This is often the seed of cultism.

It seems to me that you're supposing that the very act of seeking knowlege or understanding which thus puts the majesty of God at risk is in and of itself undesirable.

This statement is self-evident.

I don't see that threat. I believe our ability and desire to learn, is found within the image of God itself placed upon us. Certainly ot can be abused and used to imagine that God is not present or necessary. Babel is a good example of that from the past. It doesn't follow then that any such desire for understanding or explanation that proceeds is wrong or dangerous.

Science is not evil or bad. Learning is desireous and noble. I encourage my child to devour knowledge with all diligence. The world is a wonder, learn everything possible.

But it is wrong and dangerous to alter the meanings of the words of God. Often the Jehovah's Witness come to my door and I invite them in. We compare notes. We compare scriptures. For some reason they always want me to read theirs instead of mine. And the difference are sometimes profound. More often subtle.

God doesn't call upon us to protect His Majesty, His Glory or His Mystery. Those are immutable characteristics of God that exist independent of anything we do or don't do.

Instead we are called upon to guard ourselves and one another:
2 Peter 3:17 Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

Canuckster1127 wrote:On the basis of pure science, for example I'm not convinced that Intelligent Design is a viable theory. That's not because I don't believe in God and His creation obviously, because I passionately do. It's because I don't believe attempting to limit our knowledge to science in this manner is needed or valid. My belief is first and foremost on the basis of Scripture. Science ties in secondarily for me after that. I think what Intelligent Design is, as I've watched it develop, is coming more from lawyers and activists who want to find another means to promote the idea in the public schools and they're trying to make it fit a purely scientific means to try and get the courts to accept it. I think personally, that gives away too much.

Amen brother! We are singing from the same hymn book.
(except maybe I didn't say as elegantly as you. Some people challenged me .)

I once had a friend who thought that just as the universe seems infinitley large and compelx the more we study it, the same would be true of the microscopic world. 100 years ago we thought the cell was simply a bunch of protoplasm and yet today how ridiculously complex that protoplasm is!

I seriously doubt we will ever come remotely close to understanding the creation. I liken it it to a tepestry that is so complex that when we strive to follow on thread we quickly run into 100 other threads that it interacts with and influences.

I think that those who reject God will always be able to find ways of doing so, whether it was in Christ's time here on earth or present day. When God calls those He calls, His call can cut through any wall we build up, whether that is based on atheist science philosophy or not. Francis Collins, brought up faithfully as an evolutionist, recently became a Christian.

Forum Monk wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:On the basis of pure science, for example I'm not convinced that Intelligent Design is a viable theory. That's not because I don't believe in God and His creation obviously, because I passionately do. It's because I don't believe attempting to limit our knowledge to science in this manner is needed or valid. My belief is first and foremost on the basis of Scripture. Science ties in secondarily for me after that. I think what Intelligent Design is, as I've watched it develop, is coming more from lawyers and activists who want to find another means to promote the idea in the public schools and they're trying to make it fit a purely scientific means to try and get the courts to accept it. I think personally, that gives away too much.

Amen brother! We are singing from the same hymn book.
(except maybe I didn't say as elegantly as you. Some people challenged me .)

I think we're singing from the same hymnbook. One perhaps is on the melody and the other on the harmony though.

Nature is enough to lead us to the conclusion that there is a God and His handiwork is revealed in nature. I think it is more than science however. I think there is a part of us, that God shaped vacuum that Pascal has referenced that picks up and senses that, and of course the work of the Holy Spirit. Pure logic, reason and science will demonstrate to us that there is something beyond that that is spiritual. I think there are few convinced solely on that reason.

It requires specific revelation as in the Bible however to bring us to saving knowledge of who that God is and how He has established a path to Himself for us.