Evidence for God from Science

Bart, rather than make an unduly long post by line by lining, let me just summarize (and let me know if I missed anything important):

Fair enough.

1. I don't think the mechanics of Genesis 1 are secondary. I think they are the primary means by which the theological truth is revealed. Let me ask you a question - as I know you believe the actual historicity of the biblical stories cannot be compromised without compromising the message, is the historicity of the Genesis 1-2, with specific reference to the way in which Moses described the events happening, is any less important to conveying the primary theological point?

I think there may be some confusion with regard to what I am saying which may explain our reactions to one another. When I use the word mechanics with relationship to the Genesis passage, I'm speaking about, not the internal mechanics of the passage from a critical perspective, but the mechanics of how God performed his creation. I see there an attribution of creation to God. The exact mechanics of how God did it and even the exact time frame are secondary to the primary context and purpose of the passage and this ties back to the use of the word 'yom' which can mean either literal days or periods of time.

The idea of instantaneous creation of man from the dust, I see as plausible even probable, but given the larger context and the original audience, we ask the wrong the question in my opinion when we attempt to use the passage to nail these things down. Where the context of the passage and the mindframe of the original audience don't indicate that they were looking to the mechanics God employed, but rather establishing God as the first cause who had a plan and a covenant relationship in mind from the beginning of time with the nation of Israel.

I don't know how I can be any clearer than this so if this doesn't clear it up, we'll need to attribute it to the lack of my ability to communicate clearly and leave it at that.

2. I appreciate and recognize your disagreement in the second point. Another question: would you give me a specific example of something that you think the writer did not understand when he wrote it? I would rather discuss this in specifics rather than vague generalities to be sure that I don't misunderstand or misrepresent your position.

Messainic prophecy for one. I think it's clear in several places that writers were not aware that Christ's fulfillment would involve two comings, one as a suffering servant and the next in triumph.

3. With reference to my general argument against your caution that we not confuse our interpretations of the text with the text itself, here I want to take special care because the chances of offense are obviously much greater. Now, we've continually distinguished between cardinal and secondary doctrines in our discussion. Let me just ask you plainly, which will be a great help to me in understand your position and perhaps in explaining my own: by what means do you distinguish a cardinal doctrine from a secondary doctrine? Would you explain your view on the relationship between those two terms, both in terms of their relationship to their source (which I presume to be Scripture) and their relationship to one another?

I define a cardinal doctrine as one which pertains to a vital part of God's laid out soteriological plan, the absence of which would result in reliance upon anything less than the full gospel and call one's salvation into question and present barriers to fellowship. Examples of this would in my mind be things such as the deity of Christ, the humanity of Christ, the Trinity, the atonement. Secondary are issues such as theories of eschatology, differences of perspective in creationism etc.

And to be honest Jac, I'm probably not going to go much further or deeper on this line of questioning than this. Not because, it's not important, but because I've been around the mulberry bush countless times and can almost predict (as can you, no doubt) where this conversation is going to go and where our views are going to differ. I'll confess freely that over the last 5 years in my Christian walk that my perspective on several things have modified and I'm not as dogmatic on many things that I was in the past. I suspect there will continue to be change and modification on several levels, and perhaps even some movement back the other way as well. I see that as healthy and normal. I think it's part of spiritual growth and sanctification and maybe even a little wisdom building up over time, although that may be claiming too much.

The greatest change, since I anticipate you'll ask, is that I'm moving toward a stronger relational understanding of a Christian walk to where I'm not relating to the Bible as the source of right "thinking" or a form of modern gnosticism in my thinking, but toward a stronger recognition of the Living Word as Christ, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and a willingness where necessary to embrace amiguity and mystery.

That's about as deep as I want to go in this forum with it, but as we've interacted and you've picked up on some of that progression no doubt, that's what's going on with me.

blessings,

bart

Fair enough, Bart. There are still some things I don't understand about your position (not because I don't agree--I simply don't know what you hold to in some cases or the reasons you hold to whatever you do) in these matters. My questions are all related back to the central point we've been discussing--namely, one's method in interpretation more than anything else--but it's hardly fair for me to push beyond your stated . . . ah . . . limit, for lack of a better word.

All the best, then, and no hard feelings, I hope.

No offense at taken at all. I'm just trying to be upfront and set a limit for myself and it's not a reaction to you or your questions that you should take personally.

I might not be as well equipped to discuss a lot of this. I have an effective BA in Bib Lit but it's a NT concentration and most of my other training comes practically from the ordination process I underwent in the C&MA and beyond that I'm self-taught through my own reading and interaction and you're not the first I've probably frustrated with might be an admittedly imprecise use of terms on my part.

I have nothing but respect for you and others here who can delve into depths of many of these issues. I'm well enough equipped that I usually can follow it and maybe chime in from the sides but I do try to recognize my limitations and honestly, I'm not as willing to launch into it as I was when I was younger. Some of these things really suffer in the loss of nuance and things like tone and body language on a DB and lead to too much frustration and conflict.

blessings

bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:The Roman Catholic Church of that time not only had issues of Biblical interpretation surrounding Galilieo but also matters of internal politics related to those under whom Galileo held patronage, and of course, the whole matter was very public and Galileo was a very famous person.

I don't have a need to defend the Roman Catholic Church in this matter. I think it's fair to say however, that the whole situation surrounding Galileo was complex and involved many other things than just concern over hermeneutics and submission to Church authority. There were personality conflicts, posturing for current and future power and Galileo himself had no small number of enemies that he'd accumulated over the years because he was not a particularly humble man with regard to his own brilliance and importance and he wasn't afraid to make that known and had stepped on toes that welcomed the opportunity to take him down a peg.

All that said, the Roman Catholic Church actually issued an apology to Galileo in the 1990's under John Paul II including an acknowledgement that he'd been unfairly treated and that his position was correct. See? If you're patient enough eventually an apology can come .... (apologies to my friend Byblos, whom I love by the way .....)

Apologies most certainly not warranted Bart. You've said nothing I disagree with.

And boy this thread progressed rapidly. I've been travelling for the last 24 hours and need to catch up before responding.

cslewislover wrote:Byblos ( ), I'm wondering if you can explain or provide what the current Catholic position is on this. I know that the Catholic Church accepts evolution, and I was trying to find out more about it but didn't have much luck (with the time I put into it, lol). What I was trying to find out is where God fits into it all, creation and evolution together; that's what I didn't find. What is the Catholic Church's current position on this?

from Lebanon.

There is a very good reason why you weren't able to find anything and whatever you do find is most likely contradictory. The Catholic church has learnt its lesson so-to-speak from the Galilleo debackle and will not repeat it again. The RCC has NO official position on evolution, the age of the planet, the universe, multiple universes, etc. The only official position is that science is part and parcel of God's creation and in no way can be contradictory to His Word. One of the leading research projects in the domain of astrophysics is in fact championed by the Vatican, formerly headed by George Coyne, a Jesuit priest, theoligian and astrophysicit. He was removed in 2006 because of extreme, unorthodox viewpoints (even going to the extreme of stating the universe need not have evolved into a life-producing one).

Byblos wrote:The RCC has NO official position on evolution, the age of the planet, the universe, multiple universes, etc.

Thanks Byblos.. We often hear that the Pope has sanctioned evolution as "the" science of all sciences. I think the secular world would views that "science" under the vale of naturalism. Something I think the Pope would object to. Do you have the official word on that (from Benedict) ?

Thanks,
G -

Sorry for the delay Jac but I was travelling and just got back into this thread.

Jac3510 wrote:

We can certainly guess what Moses had in mind but no one knows for sure so there's no point in speculating. What we do know is that man was made from the dust of the earth but the text does not perclude everything else from being formed from the dust of the earth either. The text is silent on that. And it is certainly not misleading to think of man as different from the rest of creation considering we were created in the image of God. What do you attribute that to be Jac, a physical likeness? I hope not.

This is a nice rhetorical point, but, with all due respect, you cannot hold to it consistently. We know what Moses had in mind for the simple reason that his words tell us. That is what communication is. If you believe that you can have nothing more than speculation about what is in another person's mind based on their words, you give up all rights to communication of any kind.

My point remains. Moses' point is clear. Man was made out of the dirt of the earth--the thing he and his readers were familiar with. And still further, the idea just occurred to me, it could not mean star dust. It is nothing more than an accident of the English language that the word "dust" can apply to the stuff stars produced and the soil of the ground. The Hebrew word "dust" is a reference to the soil on top of the ground. You can't say that has anything to do with stars. It's dirt, Byblos. Moses' point is very well taken, and very well understood.

I don't disagree with you at all Jac. I'm well aware that dust most likely is dirt and dirt from the surface of the earth at that. What I'm trying to say is the ENTIRE planet earth is the stuff of stars Jac. At least that's what astrophysics tells us. Now I've been reading a lot lately on star and planet formations and as it turns out, planets are the leftover stuff when new stars are born. This leftover stuff coallesce and forms into rotating planets around their mother stars. As it also turns out, it takes 3 cycles of star/planet births and deaths for enough life-capable material is produced but that's enough on that for now.

The point again is that the planet earth, including its surface dirt, is star dust by origin so there's no contradiction with Genesis. And another important point to mention is that astrophysics is not a theoretical science nor is is experimental but it is observational by definition. That's what we observe happening (or happened a few billion years ago).

Jac3510 wrote:

I don't disagree with any of this, except perhaps the suttle implication that it was done instantaneously. I wholeheartedly believe God made us from dirt, gave us life, and made us onto his likeness.

Why would you disagree it was done instantaneously? That is what the text clearly implies. Even in an OEC model, I don't see how dirt could slowly form into the shape of a man and *POOF* become animated.

I'm not disagreeing that it could have been instantaneous (physically). I'm disagreeing that text clearly implies instantaneous pertaining to the physical part. It could just as well pertain to the spiritual part, the instance God made us into his image.

Jac3510 wrote:

What if I told you there was evidence not of a single comman ancestor but of of a multitude of common ancestors after their own kind? Sort of a super-macroevolution? That would put TE in whole new perspective wouldn't it?

No. Why would it?

Well, I don't know, I tried. It did for me.

Jac3510 wrote:

I'm not sure what your last point is. Yes, I agree animals are descendents of animals after their own kind. It's perfectly plausible that domesticated dogs are descendents of other wild canines.

Which all agree is not an instance of macroevolution. I could agree it seems plausible that domestic dogs are decendant of wild dogs, but they are all still dogs. THAT is not what an evolutionist has in mind, and you know that.

Yes, I do know that but you also know I'm no ordinary evolutionist.

Jac3510 wrote:

I'm almost positive you meant with science. I hope you still believe the Bible is reconcilable with scripture

You are correct . . . but how could you have possibly speculated as to what was in my mind?!?

Well I have communicated with you on many occasions with back-and-forth clarificationns and counter-arguments to refine our respective positions to one another. How many times have you done that with Moses?

Jac3510 wrote:

I meant it in the microcosm of the discussion we're having, not as an all-encompassing statement but point conceded. And again, I do not see the Genesis account not matching what I'm describing.

And in the microcosm of the discussion we are having, macroevolution--the diversity of life being explained by mutation, natural selection, and common decent--is precluded by Genesis. In order to make it work, you have to argue that either we don't really know what Moses meant, or Moses didn't know what Moses meant, or the Israelites didn't know what Moses went, etc. In all such cases, you destroy any notion of communication in the text, because nothing is being communicated. You make Scripture unintelligible to everyone who has ever read it accept this generation, and then, we are only able to understand it because science gave us the right worldview in which to interpret it.

I reject that solely on the basis that we cannot possibly know exactly what Moses meant simply because we cannot ask him. Anything short of that is private interpretation (the evidence of that is abundant).

Jac3510 wrote: Again, you can't consistently hold to that without destroying every important doctrine in Scripture, from God's existence to the resurrection of Jesus.

Why is that? And more importantly, who decides? (oh no, back to that dreaded subject of authority? I hope not).

Gman wrote:

Byblos wrote:The RCC has NO official position on evolution, the age of the planet, the universe, multiple universes, etc.

Thanks Byblos.. We often hear that the Pope has sanctioned evolution as "the" science of all sciences. I think the secular world would views that "science" under the vale of naturalism. Something I think the Pope would object to. Do you have the official word on that (from Benedict) ?

Thanks,
G -

From what I understand is that Pope Benedict is more of an ID person than JPII was a TE. But again, those are privately held positions by very ordinary, fallible people and in no way reflect an official position of the church.

Byblos wrote:

Alex G wrote:Yes, a Christian (and they have historically done so on many issues) can believe in evolution or any erring doctrine. It does not automatically afford us the opportunity to conclude emphatically they are not a Christian, rather that they are in error.

So all theistic evolutionists are in error?

The question in the OP assumes theistic evolution to be antagonistic to Christian doctrine (that is the way the question is structured, I am not assuming the author of the OP is trying to reveal their position, rather simply construct a question for debate). I neither affirming or denying the validity of theistic evolution, I was responding the question itself which ultimately was posed as "can someone hold to an erring view (erring meaning this is how the question was constructed) of something the Bible teaches otherwise". And of course my answer is still yes, often Christians hold to one or more erring views of something that either in the immediate or distant future (and ultimately in eternity with certainty) they will be corrected.

Now, what do I think of theistic evolution? I believe it is in error. Yes, I believe in an ancient earth and universe. Yes, I believe in the likelihood that earth had previous populations as part of the explanation of the fossil record. But I do not believe that humanity is the result of evolution by means of theistic design or purpose.

The inauguration of humanity is what Genesis is about, not the age of the universe, the earth or of its possible past populations. The lineage or genealogy of our Lord is documented in Scripture. Our Lord is literal and his genealogy is treated quite literally. To suggest that somehow we are to view a literal Christ with literal parents and literal ancestors but at some point view the genealogy as figurative (how do figurative people have literal progeny?) is a leap I am certainly not willing to take at this time and has no hermeneutic harmony that I can accept.

Alex G wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Alex G wrote:Yes, a Christian (and they have historically done so on many issues) can believe in evolution or any erring doctrine. It does not automatically afford us the opportunity to conclude emphatically they are not a Christian, rather that they are in error.

So all theistic evolutionists are in error?

The question in the OP assumes theistic evolution to be antagonistic to Christian doctrine (that is the way the question is structured, I am not assuming the author of the OP is trying to reveal their position, rather simply construct a question for debate). I neither affirming or denying the validity of theistic evolution, I was responding the question itself which ultimately was posed as "can someone hold to an erring view (erring meaning this is how the question was constructed) of something the Bible teaches otherwise". And of course my answer is still yes, often Christians hold to one or more erring views of something that either in the immediate or distant future (and ultimately in eternity with certainty) they will be corrected.

Now, what do I think of theistic evolution? I believe it is in error. Yes, I believe in an ancient earth and universe. Yes, I believe in the likelihood that earth had previous populations as part of the explanation of the fossil record. But I do not believe that humanity is the result of evolution by means of theistic design or purpose.

The inauguration of humanity is what Genesis is about, not the age of the universe, the earth or of its possible past populations. The lineage or genealogy of our Lord is documented in Scripture. Our Lord is literal and his genealogy is treated quite literally. To suggest that somehow we are to view a literal Christ with literal parents and literal ancestors but at some point view the genealogy as figurative (how do figurative people have literal progeny?) is a leap I am certainly not willing to take at this time and has no hermeneutic harmony that I can accept.

Thank you for the clarification.

And who said TE is inconsistent with any byblical geneology? If biological evolution is the stumbling block I'm affraid you have a whole lot bigger evolutionary theory than that of the biological one. Biological evolution pales in comparison to the evolution of the stars and their planets. As I said in an earlier post, unlike biological evolution (which cannot be tested, at least at the macro level), astrophysics is a science of observation. We can see how stars form. We can observe how the vestiges of these stars form planets aroud them. We can measure to a great certanity the amount of helium that's in the universe. This is incidently how we know there's more helium in the universe than there ought to be. The reason for that is that more helium was produced during the big bang due to the enormous nuclear fusion reactions that went on. We already know that stars forming for the first time or the second time do not have enough raw material to sustain life, such as carbon, oxygen, and so on. Those form in the 3rd cycle of a star's formation (and by extension its planets). We already know that earth is AT MOST 4.5 billion years old because we can observe life-sustaining material (it's a 3rd generation planet with a cycle being about 4 billion years). Astrophysics is a much bigger hurdle to cross IMO than biological evolution ever will be. That's not to say I don't believe in special creation, I most certainly do and I have no problrem reconciling the two.

Well the OP was dealing with biological evolution (Darwinist) which is why my response is limited to the incompatibility of the genealogy of our Lord which is presented literally and evolution which requires it to be, in part figurative and then at some unknown point literal. That is a hermeneutic discord of major proportions.

Regarding the remainder of theistic evolution, namely all other systems considered I am sure there are plenty of things to discuss but that was not the interest of the OP so when I referred to theistic evolution I meant for it to be limited to its biological evolutionary considerations and acceptance and nothing more broad.

Alex G wrote:Well the OP was dealing with biological evolution (Darwinist) which is why my response is limited to the incompatibility of the genealogy of our Lord which is presented literally and evolution which requires it to be, in part figurative and then at some unknown point literal. That is a hermeneutic discord of major proportions.

Regarding the remainder of theistic evolution, namely all other systems considered I am sure there are plenty of things to discuss but that was not the interest of the OP so when I referred to theistic evolution I meant for it to be limited to its biological evolutionary considerations and acceptance and nothing more broad.

I understand that. My intention was not to introduce a new subject to the discussion, merely to point out that what you assume to be a "major hermeneutical discord" may not be at all even if we have an even bigger discord to contend with. What I do not understand is why you think with TE part of the geneology must be figurative. That's the point I would like to hone in on. If that's not in line with the OP I would not mind splitting this off into a new thread,

The other considerations of theistic evolution, while having some impact on theological considerations, do not have the hermeneutic challenges that biological evolution do, hence its greater relevance.

The former is not considered in the Bible beyond hints and some texts that provide some basis for theological conclusions. The latter, however, is given special and detailed treatment.

But for the sake of discussion I am more than happy to consider, discuss and debate the issue as a whole. Here though, to answer your question about the hermeneutic issue and the genealogy, first I will say that many of the theistic evolutionists I have encountered generally dismiss it as figurative or not meant to be take literally all the way to Adam.

But ignoring their obvious indiscretion with such a claim and accepting that it can be literal, we are left then with the account of the creation itself. If man evolved then what do you do with the special creation, the account that treats his creation unique, special and separate from animals? He is created instantly and uniquely in the image of God and animals are never approached in any form or fashion with this classification.

Are we to believe man "evolved" into the image of God though the Scriptures declare he was this way from his initial existence?

Alex G wrote:The other considerations of theistic evolution, while having some impact on theological considerations, do not have the hermeneutic challenges that biological evolution do, hence its greater relevance.

The former is not considered in the Bible beyond hints and some texts that provide some basis for theological conclusions. The latter, however, is given special and detailed treatment.

But for the sake of discussion I am more than happy to consider, discuss and debate the issue as a whole. Here though, to answer your question about the hermeneutic issue and the genealogy, first I will say that many of the theistic evolutionists I have encountered generally dismiss it as figurative or not meant to be take literally all the way to Adam.

But ignoring their obvious indiscretion with such a claim and accepting that it can be literal, we are left then with the account of the creation itself. If man evolved then what do you do with the special creation, the account that treats his creation unique, special and separate from animals? He is created instantly and uniquely in the image of God and animals are never approached in any form or fashion with this classification.

Are we to believe animals man "evolved" into the image of God though the Scriptures declare he was this way from his initial existence?

A central doctrine I believe in as a Catholic is the fundamental belief that there was a physical Adam and a physical Eve from whom we all descended. I have no reason to doubt that so the question then becomes how do we reconcile that with TE. In order to answer that question we must first answer what it means to be created in the image of God (books have been written on the subject so I don't pretend to answer it, merely to summarize it). We cannot hold that we physicallly were created in the image of God for obvious reasons. So the only thing we're left with is a sipritual rather than a physical image. The moment of "human" creation so-to-speak is then shifted from an evolutionary standpoint to a theistic standpoint when God gave Adam anf Eve the gift of soul, conscience, reason (hence the first humans are born in the image of God at that time 30, 20, 10, whatever thousand years ago). That is what I consider to be the moment of special creation. This in no way presents a geneoplogical problem whatsoever; in fact it maintains the literality of it.

So the only thing we're left with is a sipritual rather than a physical image.

I think this is significant, but I still don't think TE can be reconciled with the spiritual. As much as the chance worshipers believe we physically evolved they also believe we spiritually evolved via random causes. Consciousness thoughts, intelligence etc.. would be considered an illusion, our mind is reduced to the untrustworthy since you can't trust that a fixed state of randomness is the "correct" state of function. Everything in a Darwinian world is an illusion for that matter, creating a sense of purpose, direction etc.. is utterly pointless. Unless there is an ultimate purpose nothing ever does matter, God fits that bill of ultimate purpose quite well since we know now that life is not just a matter of things "happening for no reason" since "happening" is only justifiable through action and reaction, it boils down to either chance or design and there is no escaping this logic.