Evidence for God from Science

Sorry, I missed your first question. I am one of those Christians who believe that God made "all that is, visible and invisible" by designing and maintaining a gradual progression from the big bang, through the creation of galaxies and solar systems to the emergence of life and the evolution of more complex forms culminating in humans. I believe that although the author of Genesis 1 was wrong in many ways, he grasped this overall progress with remarkable intuition. The author of Genesis 2 didn't think Genesis 1 was 'gospel,' and told a different story to emphasise a different point which boils down to the difference in cognitive ability between animals and humans, and the problems that have arrived because of it.

neo-x wrote:Jac, there are no hard feelings. I hold your opinion on matters such as these in high esteem and often learn from what you write, it is a rare exception that we are disagreeing to the fullest on a single issue.

Well, we're on the same page. I know my criticisms at times come across as sharp, and I just want to make sure they don't convey something unintended!

I am sorry to see that you take such a dim view of scientific facts, and this is not again an ad hominem, Scientifically evolution is undeniable as well as all internal mechanism are observable and predicted. I wish there was a middle ground in this but there isn't. I don't think there is anything to gain by further arguing here. I would have gone with the word interpretation but to be honest I don't think there is much of a margin for Progressive creationism nor Day age. The text itself leans towards YEC and that is why the later authors kept repeating the same thing. I can not say the text is correct because evidence shows it isn't. At this junction, I side with science, you side with the text. So be it. You can say your authority is strictly scriptural, I would not contest it, I think you are right in claiming so, albeit you are wrong factually.

But there are plenty of highly educated scientists who do dispute evolution. Perhaps they're wrong, but you don't get to say it is "undeniable."

I'd also point out that I have two objections to your first statement. The first is that it begs the question. I hardly think evolution is a "fact" at all, so your statement is just inappropriate in this context. The second is that I don't take a dim view of science generally at all. What I do take a dim view of is anything that contradictions Scripture. But on this count, I could just as well say, "I am sorry to see you take such a dim view of biblical facts." Tell me, neo, how does that move the conversation forward? It doesn't. What does help is to note that you and I have different authorities. For me, it's Scripture. For you, it's science, and that's that.

Just one thing, I think you misrepresented me, I never said I accept and reject passages to my liking. I only said where there is evidence to the contrary I must side with the evidence. While this may result in accepting or rejecting parts of Bible, it does not in anyway mean I choose passages to my like and dislike. That implies preestablished bias, and there isn't any. If anything I am trying to be as much honest as I can.

I think you've misrepresented my representation of your presentation!

I know that you don't think you are judging based on likes/dislikes. I'm saying that, though you reject it, that is the logical conclusion of your belief system. You don't "like" the fact that accepting the Scriptural account of Genesis 1 would entail rejecting what you perceive to be a scientific fact, and so you reject Scripture on this count. But you've also said that you reject the story of Balaam's talking donkey. What about Elijah causing an iron axe head to float in water? What about Joshua's prayer to have the sun move back? What about the Sea of Reeds being split about so that Moses and the Israelites could walk across dry ground? What about Jonah in the belly of a fish? What about the Shunammite woman's jar of oil being miraculous replenished? What about Jesus feeding the five thousand? What about Jesus' resurrection from the dead?

The point is simply that, at some point, you have to embrace the fact that God has claimed to do things that are scientifically impossible--more, things that violate the laws of physics. That you reject Genesis 1 because modern scientists think evolution is a fact but then accept Jesus' resurrection . . . that's just inconsistent. And that's what I mean by likes/dislikes. You accept the parts you want to believe, and the parts you don't, you reject. And that, to me, is the great tragedy of your position. You have no objective basis on which to tell someone that they ought to accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For if they insist that such a thing is impossible and you claim that, with God, miracles are possible, they can then turn around and point to the fact that you reject the miracle of creation in Genesis 1 on scientific grounds. So if you can reject miracle on scientific grounds, why can't they?

-----------------------------------

Hugh,

I'll only say to you that it is terribly bad form to come on a board and, in less than 100 posts, start making condescending remarks to long time board residents, as if no one has ever had this conversation before you got here. In addition, I take exception to two specific comments you made:

First:

Those quotes, and the comments surrounding them, made me feel that redressing the balance was worth a try. The response I elicited suggests it was.

This makes it sound like you are just trying to get a rise out of people, that you view the fact that people are disagreeing with you as some proof that something is wrong with us. That's the height of arrogance, and frankly, you owe the entire board an apology for this type of sleazy remark.

Second, since you cited me,

Not only was I criticised for using the word 'personal' (and given some rather childish advice on how to write)

That you regarded the "advice" I gave you on "how to write" as childish shows your continued disdain for the way a discussion board works. I actually took the time to link to you to a major textbook the colleges across the country use in their writing classes. More, Zinsser is a Harvard professor of English, so if you think his advice is "childish," that should tell you something about your own approach to writing.

But more to the point, if you had taken the time to read the two paragraphs I took some of my precious time to link to, you would have seen that the point I made was more substantive than stylistic. It went to the actual issues in the argument, and your dismissal of such just proves you fundamental dishonesty in these types of conversations.

And with that, I bid thee adieu. If you're more interested in preaching and attacking than conversing, then I have far more interesting things to do with my time. I do have some wet paint here that needs watching . . .

Jac, I'm tracking with you, certainly in agreement on the consistency of position issue. To take major and key, foundational passages in Scripture and saying they aren't true because they violate science - well, the beginning of the world, the scientific laws that were there at the very beginning, the incredible precision and order of how the universe proceeded to develop, inhospitable earth becomes conducive to supporting life - where there was no life - these are all incredible miracles. God becomes man, His body dies, He is Resurrected, will come again - no, fellows, you'll not find this stuff in the science books BECAUSE GOD HAS THE POWER AND CONTROL TO SUPERSEDE HIS OWN LAWS, the very laws of physics, etc. that He Himself created and put in play.

And then many of the miracles in Scripture OT and NT) are referred to over and over in the New Testament as fact, . So are you not going to believe it as well? Then you have no certainty of Jesus, or His Deity, His death and Resurrection - you've got nothing but assertions that there is some truth amongst what is largely allegories of uncertain meanings. Oh, and Jesus tells us that He considers "The Law" (Books of Moses) to be God's word, that He views it as an unbreakable unit - what does that say about whether or not it is true? One might debate the specifics of the HOW, WHEN and HOW LONG - but whether or not it is TRUE ... you might as well then start doubting the New Testament, our very same source for all detailed information about Jesus. I believe that is what Jac is saying as well.

The second is that I don't take a dim view of science generally at all. What I do take a dim view of is anything that contradictions Scripture.

Aha, but here is where we best be very careful. It may well be the case that there are parts of Scripture that science DOES have correct understandings of - it's just that we don't accurately know what the Scripture is truly saying or means (think Galileo and the churches understanding of Scripture to teach earth-centric beliefs). And let's also not forget that the certainties of yesterday's science are not necessarily those of today, nor today's those of tomorrow. And so what we THINK is correct scientific understandings may well be wrong or incomplete. Which means that any perceived conflicts may be due to a number of things but that at the end of the day is merely due to the incompleteness of our understandings and the limitations of what we can know and what science can tell us.

Hugh, your answers below concern me. But I do appreciate your being honest with them.

1) Do you believe Jesus was God?
ANSWER: Yes.

Fantastic!

2) Why do you believe you need to be saved?
ANSWER: Sadly, my theology is nothing like as good as my science. The most honest answer I can give is that I don't know.

Hugh, if you don't know WHY you need to be saved, you MAY not be.

3) How do you know you are saved?
ANSWER: Again, the most honest answer I can give is that I don't know.

Then PLEASE make sure! That is far more important to me than any debate.

Hugh, salvation is VERY simple, and it's so simple that many wrongly/unScripturally try to add things to what God said we need to do to be saved (as they try to say you need "Jesus plus this or that, you must DO this, that and the other.")

Salvation is this simple:

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." (Romans 10:9-10). This means believing Jesus is Who He said He was (God!) and also believing He died and was Resurrected.

"The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30) This is acknowledging before God that one is a sinner, is sorry for and also realizes the need and necessity of repenting (turning) from one's sins.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this (grace/salvation) is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8–9) So you can't EARN salvation by being good enough, or doing enough good works - NO ONE can. We can only, as a poor beggar, accept (through faith) the gift (salvation) that God is offering ALL willing to accept and embrace it. Our works reveal the reality of our salvation (and our sincerity in desiring to follow Christ) but are not the CAUSE of it.

"But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 you believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" (James 2:19) This reveals that our faith cannot be a mere intellectual belief, as with that of the demons, but that it is to be an active and obedient faith, a TRUE and ACTIVE FAITH and not just mere belief. If you truly have faith you will strive to obey Jesus. Many believe Jesus existed, some even believe He is God, but they have not truly placed their faith in Him, repented of their sins, determined to follow and obey Him as God (this does NOT mean we won't still sin - we will, but our faith in Christ means we are forgiven for all past, present and future sins) - and so such people are not saved.

Hugh, of course, the above is all predicated upon also believing what Scripture teaches that Jesus and the Apostles taught about how to be saved. I'm sure you've heard some of this, perhaps read about it - but whatever the case may be, I just implore you to make absolutely sure! And NOW!

Philip

I believe God is the author of scripture, as well as the author of creation. With that, I also believe there's absolutely no conflict between scripture and nature. The only conflict is in our faulty interpretations of the evidence of creation, and our faulty interpretation of scripture. I think if we're all intellectually honest believers, we need to acknowledge that we could be wrong in either interpretation. It's not a matter of choosing science over scripture, or choosing a dogmatic interpretation of scripture over what we see in creation. If God is the author of both creation and scripture, which I think a believer has to acknowledge, then there's no conflict between the two.

Philip wrote:Aha, but here is where we best be very careful. It may well be the case that there are parts of Scripture that science DOES have correct understandings of - it's just that we don't accurately know what the Scripture is truly saying or means (think Galileo and the churches understanding of Scripture to teach earth-centric beliefs). And let's also not forget that the certainties of yesterday's science are not necessarily those of today, nor today's those of tomorrow. And so what we THINK is correct scientific understandings may well be wrong or incomplete. Which means that any perceived conflicts may be due to a number of things but that at the end of the day is merely due to the incompleteness of our understandings and the limitations of what we can know and what science can tell us.

I hear what you are saying, but I'm becoming more convinced that this actually isn't properly stated. The lesson of Galileo is not (or ought not be) that science can correct our reading of Scripture. It is that we should never read our scientific worldviews into scripture. The assumption is that people thought the Bible taught geocentrism and that Galileo proved heliocentrism and therefore proved that people were misreading Scripture. But that, I think, is too superficial an analysis. Geocentrism did not come from Scripture. It actually came out of Greek philosophy and was read into Scripture by early Christian exegetes. And if you look at the history of hermeneutics (as precedented by early Jewish interpreters, e.g., Philo), you'll see that's not that surprising.

So what Galileo actually did was prove that a preexisting bias for a worldview that was never intended by Scripture was incorrect. When people gave that bias up, they were able to see more clearly what Scripture actually intended.

To me, then Galileo's lesson should warn us a lot more against adopting OEC or TE on the basis of science than against adopting YEC in the face of it. I find it rather difficult to argue that YEC is a foreign worldview imposed on the text, and I find it telling that OEC advocates don't tend to argue that it is. What you actually tend to argue--and what I argued, in my OEC days--is that OEC does not contradict Scripture, that Scripture can be read in an OEC fashion (especially by taking yom to mean "age"), and that since OEC better fits science (along with the validity of the reading), it is the better interpretation. That's a fine argument as far as it goes. I'm unconvinced anymore on a variety of levels, but that's neither here nor there for this discussion. I'm just saying that I've not seen many people try argue that the idea that the world was created in six, twenty-four hour days in a deathless state is an idea born from philosophy or science by which Scripture was (mis)interpreted. And, again, shy of that argument, I don't think that Galileo helps the OEC advocate at all.

Just my $.02.

Jac, the problem in Galileo's day was that people had BOTH the science and Scripture wrong. But the wrongful belief in what people THOUGHT Scripture was teaching was hugely influential on why they came to a false scientific belief. A very wide range of influential, conservative evangelical leaders also support the OEC view - and these are not people prone to lightly considering their theological understandings and applied hermeneutics.

But what REALLY matters is what people consider after Adam is created, and God's communications with man from there onward. There can certainly be honest and sincere disagreement on what happened (time wise) before Adam. And the Hebrew texts of Genesis definitely do not allow only a YEC view. I would also submit that many YECs are also reading the text with the eyes and understandings of a modern, Western reader - which the ancient audience would not have had. And let's not forget that the Book of Job - when it was written - may be even older than Genesis.

Thank you, philip, for your concern for my spiritual development. It is a cause of continuous study on my part, and as I said, I am much more of a scientist than a theologian. However I take your point advisedly. I won't discuss it further here, in a forum devoted to God and Science, and more specifically in a thread entitled Fruit bearing plants before dinosaurs, but I am indeed mindful of it. Thank you.

And I'm sorry, jac3510, that I disturbed you so much. All I wanted to do was to show that calling something a 'personal' view should not automatically discredit that view. Both I and neo-x were accused of our 'personal' views as if they were something disreputable, which I felt was unjustified. I also felt it was expressed somewhat rudely.

"Now you have no authority other than yourself. You believe the parts you like and reject the parts you don't. You can say that isn't the case, but that's the inescapable conclusion of your position. Someone can deny the resurrection by appealing to the fallibility of the human authors and claim that God was simply accommodating precritical beliefs about reality and the human authors were just too ignorant to know the difference. ... Of course, you'll reject that, but that's because you like the resurrection, and that's the difference in me and you--that's also the loss that you refuse to acknowledge. My authority is Scripture. Yours is yourself."

To illustrate the unreasonableness of this, I replied with careful attention to my language, using techniques I am familiar with from books such as the wonderful Mr Zinsser. It was neither him, nor you, I called childish, but the advice that I should consult him, and especially the reference to pages 12 and 13 of his book, wherein he advises against redundant adjectives. I did not use the word 'personal' without thinking about it, nor do I think it redundant. Neither did you.

Bad form, eh? "Your dismissal of such [of what, exactly?] just proves your fundamental dishonesty in these types of conversations." Does it indeed? Fundamental dishonesty. Have you read my posts on this website? Do you really think they read as fundamentally dishonest? Do you really think I'm fundamentally dishonest? Is it fundamentally dishonest to believe there are no valid grounds for believing that fruit trees appeared before fish? Is it fundamentally dishonest for an evolutionary biologist to explain why he thinks there are no valid grounds for believing that fruit trees appeared before fish? Or why such grounds as may be adduced are not, in his personal (oops!) opinion, valid? Hmmm.....

Be that as it may, I'm delighted with your latest posting; specifically:

"So what Galileo actually did was prove that a preexisting bias for a worldview that was never intended by Scripture was incorrect. When people gave that bias up, they were able to see more clearly what Scripture actually intended."

Only, of course, I would add, "and Newton, and Darwin, and Einstein" to Galileo.

Thank you, philip, for your concern for my spiritual development. It is a cause of continuous study on my part, and as I said, I am much more of a scientist than a theologian. However I take your point advisedly. I won't discuss it further here, in a forum devoted to God and Science, and more specifically in a thread entitled Fruit bearing plants before dinosaurs, but I am indeed mindful of it. Thank you.

Hugh, so glad you take this (Salvation) matter seriously. No need to discuss further, unless you desire to (feel free to private mail me) - as that is between you and the Lord. But a couple of things: Don't just try to figure out the truth of this salvation issue rationally or on your own - pray for God's help to guide and show you the truth about it (that is already in Scripture, as I shared). One of the key purposes of Jesus being born into the world was for us to realize we can have a personal relationship in prayer with Him. And God answers those whom sincerely seek and desire Him. So don't go on just feelings as they can often be wrong. Meditate upon Jesus' additional words in this matter: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=ESV

Jac

But there are plenty of highly educated scientists who do dispute evolution. Perhaps they're wrong, but you don't get to say it is "undeniable."

I don't think this is the reason why you reject evolution or I accept it.

The second is that I don't take a dim view of science generally at all.

I never meant you did, we were talking about evolution and my term "scientific facts" in context was meant only for that.

The point is simply that, at some point, you have to embrace the fact that God has claimed to do things that are scientifically impossible--more, things that violate the laws of physics. That you reject Genesis 1 because modern scientists think evolution is a fact but then accept Jesus' resurrection . . . that's just inconsistent. And that's what I mean by likes/dislikes. You accept the parts you want to believe, and the parts you don't, you reject. And that, to me, is the great tragedy of your position. You have no objective basis on which to tell someone that they ought to accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For if they insist that such a thing is impossible and you claim that, with God, miracles are possible, they can then turn around and point to the fact that you reject the miracle of creation in Genesis 1 on scientific grounds. So if you can reject miracle on scientific grounds, why can't they?

Precisely not. I do not say genesis one can not happen because God cannot do it, of course he can, but the question is did he? See I don't think he did. I have complete reason to see that is not the case and so if someone is to ask me why I reject the miracle in Genesis but accept in the gospels, my reply would not be based on criteria that I think miracles don't or can't happen or that God could or couldn't do it; but to whether he did it or not and what reasons I have for either.

I am sure God could make all of this in 6 seconds but I don't think he did. There is overwhelming evidence that he did not. I am not even trying to align scripture to fit science, unlike I take it you would have to do as soon as you claim YEC to be a scientific truth.

My observations come from evidence and logic. Not from my likes or dislikes. Where I do not have enough evidence I try to keep faith.

Philip wrote:Jac, the problem in Galileo's day was that people had BOTH the science and Scripture wrong. But the wrongful belief in what people THOUGHT Scripture was teaching was hugely influential on why they came to a false scientific belief. A very wide range of influential, conservative evangelical leaders also support the OEC view - and these are not people prone to lightly considering their theological understandings and applied hermeneutics.

But what REALLY matters is what people consider after Adam is created, and God's communications with man from there onward. There can certainly be honest and sincere disagreement on what happened (time wise) before Adam. And the Hebrew texts of Genesis definitely do not allow only a YEC view. I would also submit that many YECs are also reading the text with the eyes and understandings of a modern, Western reader - which the ancient audience would not have had. And let's not forget that the Book of Job - when it was written - may be even older than Genesis.

I don't want to be dismissive of your comments here, philip. I don't, however, think you tackled the substance of my previous comments. As I said, I think the analysis you are providing is just off the mark. I would also disagree with the two underlined sentences in the second paragraph, and I also fail to see what Job has to do with the conversation. (Actually, I don't -- I know what you are implying, but I find the hermeneutical principles of employing outside texts as an interpretive lens for another passage to be highly dubious, at best).

All in all, we just have some basic disagreements at the methodological level here. And that's fine, but I just want to make sure we are clear about those differences. No more, no less.

---------------------------------

neo-x wrote:I don't think this is the reason why you reject evolution or I accept it.

Of course not, but it does go to show that--despite your insistence to the contrary--that the matter is not settled from even a scientific perspective. That is, there are highly qualified scientists who, for scientific reasons, reject evolution. Your attempt to paint this as a simple matter of science v. faith is, therefore, misguided at best and dishonest at worst (in that you are simply stacking the deck).

In short, I reject evolution because the Bible, as best as I understand it, rejects evolution. I am not, therefore, surprised when I see highly qualified scientists rejecting evolution as well. I am less surprised when I see those same scientists marginalized. There should be always a great concern when advocates of any position use "scientific consensus" as a weapon to bludgeon opposing views -- as if science were a democratic institution.

Precisely not. I do not say genesis one can not happen because God cannot do it, of course he can, but the question is did he? See I don't think he did. I have complete reason to see that is not the case and so if someone is to ask me why I reject the miracle in Genesis but accept in the gospels, my reply would not be based on criteria that I think miracles don't or can't happen or that God could or couldn't do it; but to whether he did it or not and what reasons I have for either.

I am sure God could make all of this in 6 seconds but I don't think he did. There is overwhelming evidence that he did not. I am not even trying to align scripture to fit science, unlike I take it you would have to do as soon as you claim YEC to be a scientific truth.

My observations come from evidence and logic. Not from my likes or dislikes. Where I do not have enough evidence I try to keep faith.

And yet you reject Balaam's talking donkey. What evidence do you have for rejecting that claim, neo? You've already explicitly stated your basis for the claim elsewherewhen you wrote:

• And I would say the same for balaam's donkey speaking too, that's just too irrational. But the handwriting on the wall in the book of daniel seems much more plausible to me.

So one is "just too irrational" and the other "seems more plausible." That is, you don't like one view and you do like the other. All I'm trying to get you to see is that your view tries to eat your cake and have it, too. You say you believe the Bible, but you reserve to right to disbelieve the Bible. So you come to me and tell me I should believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. You show me Scripture on what I must do to be saved. I then say, "I would say that Jesus' resurrection . .. that's just too irrational. But the handwriting on the wall in the book of Daniel seems much more plausible to me." You show me all the evidence you want (a la Craig, perhaps), and I respond, "Yeah, but that's just scientifically absurd. Dead people don't come back. That's just a scientific fact." You the insist that God can bring someone back, and I say, "I'm sorry you take such a dim view of scientific facts, neo." You reject my claim, saying you aren't taking a dim view of science at all--you're just taking the Bible to be true! To which I say, "I didn't say you take a dim view of science generally. I'm just saying that, in this case, science has spoken--dead people don't come back from the dead. It would just be irrational do believe what the Bible says here. I mean, I believe the Bible is inspired here and the story has some real meaning, but I'm just saying it is factually wrong."

You have absolutely no objective basis on which to accept the resurrection but reject Genesis 1's account of creation. There is no way to arbitrate between the two, except, of course, what you've already said: one is too irrational, the other seems much more plausible. Unfortunately, goose and gander and all that, and when something seems to irrational for someone else that you see as plausible, then you have no basis on which to disagree.

That's the loss.