Starman

Just want to say how much I appreciate this discussion. I think all sides on the issue are making good points (though I’m not a fan of cessationism). Using the elephant analogy, I think we all see through a glass darkly, so are like the blind men and the elephant. All are accurately describing a piece of the elephant. And, rather than going ad hominem, we can graciously affirm that each view is valid and provides an opportunity to learn. Having said that, I think there is another piece of the puzzle to be considered: the idea of spirit, soul and body. A balanced, mature believer is one whose spirit has come alive to God and is living in a continual connection and communication with the Holy Spirit. This communication will include prayer in the Spirit, which for many, involves praying in tongues as described in 1 Cor 14. The key to being a spiritual man, according to Paul in 1 Cor 2:10-15, is the ascendency of the human spirit over the soul (mind and emotions) and body, resulting in the Spirits dominion over the person, which is tantamount to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. This dominion not only ensures that the believer not fulfill the lust of the flesh, but also that the thoughts and fruit of the Spirit dominate the soul life, rather than subjective human thinking and emotion. The dominance of spirit over soul involves a process of maturation, in which the believer is crucifying the flesh with its affections and lusts, and appropriating the nature of Christ. The spirit man increases while the natural man decreases, progressively asserting less control over the whole person. With these ideas in view I think we come to a more accurate assessment of the variety of Christian expressions which is, to a large extent, a matter of spiritual maturity as defined above. Some of the extreme emotional expressions of Pentecostalism are not necessarily wrong, but may be an unbalanced mixture of soul and spirit. This is a problem in the sense that it may create a distorted view of the Lord (since He is Spirit, not soul), but certainly does not threaten a believers salvation. Thus the cessationist accusations that these expressions are demonic and participants are unsaved are misplaced, and in fact rooted in prideful self-righteous deception. The cessationist is typically also spiritually unbalanced since they have allowed their intellect and human reasoning to dominate and suppress their human spirit, causing them to reject the voice and moving of the Holy Spirit. Both these categories of believer are inherently soulish and natural, rather than truly spiritual. Which, if we are honest, describes all of us to varying degrees. We all live somewhere on the continuum between the natural and spiritual man, so much humility in these discussions is appropriate.

I don't want to discuss the issue further since the debate has become tedious with no new information is being shared. However, I do want to set the record straight. Your assertion that the Gould quote is a fraud was incorrect - I found the article and the quote here: http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/gould.pdf The quote is on page 127, top left. In fact, the whole paragraph is worth reading.

I can’t keep up. You win! Let’s move on. PLEASE!

I infer that you felt the need to jump in because I mischaracterized your position. However, in the prior post you seem to agree with my use of the “mystery.” I apologize if I read more than I should not the exchange.

Here is an article by Stephen Meyer that helps explain my perspective. I’d be interested to hear your critique https://intelligentdesign.org/philosophy-of-science/not-a-chance/

Unfortunately, you haven’t addressed my issue. The Gould quote does not nullify the voice of many other scientists (all references to the quotes are available but providing gets too tedious) And the question is not whether evolutionists believe there are transitional forms, but whether they can posit the necessary molecular pathways and a reasonable likelihood of occurrence. Your reference to heme in a Trex fossil is interesting but doesn’t come close to addressing the difficult issue I’m concerned about (and in no way points to a Darwinian process). I understand that you find the evidence convincing, but I don’t. It is interesting and provides a window into a creative process which we have yet to really understand. one.opinion, who strongly believes in a Darwinian explanation, also freely admits that we’re dealing with a mystery here. As I said, supply the math and physics and I’ll listen. Molecular biology is hard which is why I became an engineer.

I can cite many renowned biologist who state that the fossil record provides at best a poor demonstration of Darwin. Are you disagreeing with them? Regarding transitional forms, it’s not enough to show an organism with intermediate morphology and claim it is intermediate in a Darwinian sense. I think we need to show why the transition is plausible at the molecular level, that is to propose a step-wise genetic process that can plausibly result in the observed morphological changes. That includes a discussion of the available probabilistic resources, and the origin of the vast amounts of new biological information required. The assumption of a generalized Darwinian process involves too much hand waving to call it a solid scientific conclusion. At a minimum it involves a lack of intellectual curiosity. So let’s talk about any transitional form you like as long you supply the math and physics.

From what I’ve been reading you are greatly underestimating the problem with both the fossil record and the Cambrian explosion. Of course, I need to support this claim but need time to extract the best information. The highly acclaimed book “Darwin’s Doubt” provides a very thorough presentation of the problems with Cambrian explosion. I’m reading it slowly since my time is limited. I don’t know much about Curt Wise but notice that The Barbarian likes to quote him, since his status as a creationist seems to give more credence to Darwin.

If you want to put this off until later, that's no problem, but we should probably look at the evidence issue by issue, to not dilute the depth of discussion too much. When you are ready, could you explain the evidence that supports your perception of the problem with the fossil record and what alternative the existing fossil record supports better? There are endless quotes from well known evolutionists regarding problems with the fossil record. I’ve provided a small sampling below. As you know Gould and Eldredge saw these gaps, not mainly as a result of an incomplete fossil record but as a more or less complete record of evolution, resulting in their theory of punctuated equilibrium (which I don’t pretend to fully understand). I think if one believes that punctuated equilibrium adequately answers the dilemma then it is necessary to explain the mechanism for rapid changes at the molecular level. Simply declaring that they occur is insufficient. Also, the Cambrian explosion as recorded in the Burgess Shale and in China should also be included in the discussion since the data seems to go against neo-Darwinian processes. As you know the Cambrian explosion is a big topic in and of itself, requiring much detail to be intelligible (I’ll try to address this in a future post). In the mean time here are a few quotes. Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, “A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks…One of the ironies of the creation evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this ‘fact’ in their Flood (Raup, David, “ Geology” New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981.) A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates.” (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163.) What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories.” (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.) The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed.” (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71.) The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history – not the artifact of a poor fossil record.” (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59.) “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, Stephen J., “ Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?,” 1982, p. 140.)

One.Opinion I'm not sure if you saw my post yesterday. If not, it is down at the bottom of page 5 I had seen it. I think right now I've veered off into the theological realm, posing some questions to The Barbarian. Since most of us here are not theologians my expectations are low. I'm looking to cohesively integrate the science into a defensible theology. The discussion so far has been interesting but no cohesion yet. I appreciate your honesty to simply say, "I don't know," which is clearly the only correct answer. At the same time I see fatal flaws in evolutionary theory, including: the significant discontinuities in the fossil record which directly contradict Darwinian expectations (few candidate transitions forms with the expectation of many, many closely graded forms); the relative impotence of natural probabilistic forces to drive large scale phenotypic changes (or even modest ones); the inability to present the step-wise molecular changes needed to explain intermediate forms (should be able to model this and create convincing computer simulations); the low probability of beneficial mutations as demonstrated in bacterial studies (and observed adaptation is often the result of loss of function rather than addition of new functionality). Any of these issues seem sufficient to falsify the theory (prior answers to my questions were incomplete and unconvincing). This may be fodder for additional discussion.

Some follow up questions. 1. Given your neo-Darwinian explanation for biological life on earth in what sense is God the creator? 2. Are you a proponent of theistic evolution, one version being that God front-loaded the evolutionary process to provide the information and capability to ultimately reach a predetermined result, I.e. humans in His image? 3. If yes, is it not true that the “natural processes” are in fact supernatural processes since they lead to a divine result, which is a very different result than might occur through strictly blind natural processes? 4. Or do you believe that evolutionary processes are completely blind and the various forms of life on earth, including man, are only the result of biological necessity? If so, what does God mean when He says, “Let us create man in our image”? I’m also still hoping that you will answer my previous questions.

I don’t think you’ve answered my questions. The Genesis account shows God creating the heavens and the earth over a six day period, with the creation of man on day six. In what sense is this true? This is a question, not a trap. Regarding, Genesis as parable I shouldn’t have used the word “fictitious” since that was not the point. Using, whatever definition you like, how is the account a parable? What principles or truths is the parable teaching? Its OK to say, “I don’t know.” I’m just trying to learn from you.

Some questions come to mind: 1. Please explain what you mean when you say, "the Genesis account is factual." Where are the facts in the account and in what sense is the account true? 2. A parable is generally defined as a fictitious story used to demonstrate a religious truth or idea. How does the Genesis account fit that definition (or perhaps yo define parable differently)?

What I think isn’t the point here.

Actually, the doctrine is stricter than that. Here is a typical wording that is affirmed by most evangelicals: ”Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible"is without error or fault in all its teaching";or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". Some equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility; others do not.The belief is of particular significance within parts of evangelicalism” That means that even implying that the Genesis account is anything other than fact is considered a “liberal” form of Christianity and violates the beliefs of many. So basically when you make statements which seem to contradict Scripture you are likely offending a significant portion of people on this site. You would get less backlash by insulting someone’s mother. This makes it difficult for some to listen to your ideas on evolution since you are seen as The Barbarian who seeks to overthrow the sacred. Just sayin.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing, but you must understand that a fundamental Christian who believes in biblical infallibility and inerrancy cannot accept your statement. To do so requires the potential destruction of an essential plank of the standard Christian faith. The issue then ceases to be about the evidence for evolution and becomes a debate about the nature of Scripture, and even the existence of God himself. This is the reason for the heated discussion with Dad2 and others. They are defending their faith and discussion about evolution is only the vehicle. They are understandably riled by your cavalier statements about these issues. No matter how much evidence you present unless it is compatible with an orthodox biblical view agreement will never be reached. I assume you know this, but you may want to consider when this discussing the topic on a Christian forum.

One.opinion That rant was a bit condescending. You’ve mischaracterized my use of the word “intuition,” and from my vantage point seem to misunderstand ID. Regarding intuition the point is to look at the available evidence and decide what theoretical framework provides the best explanation. That is ultimately an intuitive process since smart people can reach different conclusions. Your intuition tells you that TE provides the best explanation, but you are wont to really explain or prove it is correct. From what I’ve read the ID argument with Darwinism is the tendency to use presumption and wishful thinking rather than solid scientific reasoning. Lots of “just so stories” that can’t be defended. I’m still formulating my opinion on this, and realize that in the end no theory is perfect, lots of unanswered questions on every side. IMO we are dealing with a mystery and shouldn’t pretend that we know My fear at this point is that there’s no way to have this conversation without defensiveness and ego interfering with an honest open-minded inquiry. I’m not interested in an argument, and I don’t need to be right. Just looking for a respectful discussion.

I'm engaging in this discussion since I'm genuinely interested in sorting out the issue of evolution in a way that is compatible with Scripture and my own intuition about God and the way He operates. At this point I'm impressed with ID ideas from Stephen Meyer and others since they seem to provide the best technical answers about origins that are compatible with a biblical view. However, I have questions about TE and the idea of God using natural, random processes to create. TE seems to involve too many unanswered scientific questions and theological problems, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Here are some comments and questions which anyone with the time and inclination can address. The purpose is to kick off a discussion of some of the philosophical and technical details of evolutionary theory. First of all I think we need to start by distinguishing microevolution (MIE) from macroevolution (MAE) since a misleading extrapolation has been made from one to the other. IMO, MAE is incorrectly assumed to be simply a large accumulation of MIE changes so that MIE is used to validate MAE when in fact novel processes are likely be required for large-scale phenotypic changes. Furthermore, I assert that while MIE can be defined as valid scientific theory MAE does not satisfy the accepted criteria for a valid theory. A viable theory must be (from the Internet): 1. logically consistent (contradictions aren't allowed) 2. logically falsifiable (there must be possible or theoretical situations in which the theory would be invalid) 3. be empirically testable or lead to testable predictions or retrodictions (use present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs) 4. make verified predictions and/or retrodictions 5. lead to reproducible results so others can double-check I would add to the list, “the best explanation of the data among other competing on theories.” I assert that these conditions are met for MIE but the last four points are not satisfied for MAE so, it is not a valid scientific theory. Please show me why MAE qualifies as a valid scientific theory based the above criteria. Furthermore, I think there are two key kinds of evidence needed to validate MAE: 1) A fossil record showing a large number of transitional forms, for which the phenotypic differences between them are achievable with a small number of genetic mutations (within reach of the Darwinian the process). A handful of such forms is not compelling since Darwinism predicts both quantity and quality. Darwin: "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." Gould: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediate stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." In addition, the assessment of whether a form is transitional can be the result of a biased circular logic. An organism may be assumed transitional based on a prior commitment to the “truth” of evolution and a materialism, resulting in the automatic rejection of reasonable alternative explanations. 2) A theoretical model which provides a step-wise description of the changes between the transitional forms at the level of the gene, a plausible physical mechanism with the ability to cause the changes (includes required mutation rates, number of trials needed for natural selection to work etc.), a mathematical analysis demonstrating that the required processes have a reasonable probability of occurrence. The model would could be implemented as a peer-reviewed computer simulation. If punctuation is assumed then the same kind of theoretical model is needed. I assert that If either these conditions are not satisfied MAE comes up short as scientific theory and is better described as a hypothesis rather than a theory. Why am I wrong?

A Christian 1985 Does that means that evolutionary biology should not be considered a scientific discipline since Macroevolution is not replicable?

One.Opinion Evolution is hardly speculative. Small-scale evolution is directly observable and evidence in the fossil record, genomes, comparative anatomy, and geographical distribution of living things all support the idea that evolution does not reach boundaries, but is a continual process. If evolution exists, it is clearly theistic. Unfortunately, we are misunderstanding each other a btt which is typical for this kind of communication. My point was not that evolution is speculative but that theistic evolution is speculative, the idea of God frontloading the information etc. to enable creation to move toward a divine goal. Even if one were to define such a mechanism it can never be observable, testable etc. – so TE is pure speculation. No intelligent person can doubt microevolution since it is supported be an abundance of data, and is to some extent observable in the lab. I feel pretty strongly that macroevolution is in fact highly speculative and not well supported by either empirical or theoretical data (arithmetic genetic models). We may get into some of those details in this convo, but the more I study the subject the more I’m leaning toward a rejection of the possibility – perhaps you can turn me around. There is also no biblical basis for atomic theory, cell theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of gravity. Are you consistently applying the criteria of "must have biblical basis" to these other theories, as well? I was obviously not clear in my statement about the need for a biblical basis. My point is not that scientific ideas need to be validated by the Bible but rather that, unless I’m misunderstanding TE, the idea of a God who operates mainly through natural law is not a biblical concept (correct me if I’m wrong). Therefore, when I’m looking for a viable theory I will tend to choose one that is resonant with the way God is conveyed in Scripture. I understand you don’t see it that way. I know you are reading my words, but you seem to have difficulty comprehending them since you keep claiming my view is deistic. Perhaps you have a preconceived notion of what you think TEs believe and that is skewing your perception of what I am actually saying. I cannot control what you think, but I can explain what I think. My view of God is shaped primarily by the reading of His Word and the indwelling Holy Spirit. I have already explained to you that my view of His creation reveals not only His power and beauty, but also His intimacy with all aspects of His creation. Somehow, you have ignored this. Yes, perhaps I’m misunderstanding your view and that of TE in general. However, I don’t see “intimacy with all aspects of His creation” in TE. But I don’t doubt that you do. For what it’s worth I’m not questioning the authenticity of your Christian experience or calling you a deist. We are clearly worshipping the same God. This is not personal. I was responding to your assertion, friend. The fact is, we don't know. You can certainly postulate that God did nudge an asteroid toward earth roughly 65 million years ago, and I certainly can't deny it, but it is no more sound in any way than suggesting that an omnipotent God could have set it up at the time of the Big Bang. Yes, we don’t know – no truer statement. My ignorance about God and the way He created is the one thing I am absolutely sure of. Job’s response to God at the end of his ordeal seems apt here: “Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge? “Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Then Job answered the Lord and said, “Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You? I lay my hand on my mouth. “Once I have spoken, and I will not answer; Even twice, and I will add nothing more.” Job 38:1-4; 40:3-5 Let God be true and every man a liar.

One.Opinion You seem to be missing one of my main points. A Creator outside the limits of time can work in the dimension in time, as well as space. His actions can be simultaneous, and not a “wind it up and let it go” sort of action. Sorry, I have no idea what this means – simultaneously in and outside of time. Perhaps, I’m too simple minded. God is either interacting directly with His creation in the realm of time and space or He has withdrawn himself and is executing His will through intermediaries (this happened several times in the history of Israel). Not only is the idea of theistic evolution speculative, with no biblical basis, but it portrays a nonbiblical view of the Father, which is perhaps closer to Deism. Scripture reveals a personal God, intimately involved with that which He has created. I think these ideas arise from an inverted theology in which the view of God is shaped by one’s scientific preconceptions, rather than the scientific perspective being informed by God’s revelation of himself. The result is the truth is turned upside down - the evolutionist claims that God and design are an illusion resulting from the power of natural selection, when in fact naturalistic evolution is the illusion created by the spiritual vacuum which occurs when people lose a connection with the living God. I’ll get off my soap box now. So did God, at some point after He created the universe, set a large asteroid in a trajectory to hit the earth? Why is that more tenable (scientifically or theologically) than God creating conditions at the beginning of time that would eventually result in the formation of an asteroid that would strike the earth? This is very speculative and there is no answer to such a question. But, given the choice I lean toward a more active, anthropomorphic view of God since that is the way He is portrayed in Scripture. Taking this idea to an extreme, I suppose you could say that the acts of divine judgment in the Bible, such as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah etc., were set in motion before the beginning of time, rather than as a result of God’s reaction to disobedience. You’re not saying that but the idea is no more silly than talking about asteroids set in motion at the Big Bang. This line of reasoning is no longer productive – time to move on.

One.Opinion I disagree. When I see an extravagant Rube-Goldberg machine (fantastic example here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qybUFnY7Y8w), I do not think of the creation of the machine as a passive process, at all! I am amazed by the precision, care, and skill it took to put it all together. Given the referenced video you seem to be likening creation to a magical machine that has been programmed to execute a divine instruction set which generates specific biological products on a pre-defined timeline. Critical events on the timeline might include bursts of speciation (e.g., Precambrian) and extinction events leading to new speciation events etc. Is this the idea? If so, I’m not sure why you are wedded to the necessity of strictly natural processes being in play, and God taking a strictly hands-off approach. This seems to be an odd, unnecessary assumption. Going with my understanding of your analogy I would see the laws of physics and natural processes as like the operating system that runs in the background, with God intervening at various points to personally “steer” the machine. The interventions might be seen as catastrophes in the geologic record, or infusions of new biological information (genomic changes) seen as macro evolutionary steps (e.g., dinosaurs destroyed to make way for the age of mammals etc.). I resonate more with an active rather than a passive God. I’ll address the macroevolution evidence question later.

One.opinion "I'm saying that I believe classical Darwinian (non-teleological) evolution is untrue. However... mechanistically, I would say that a theistic version of evolution (with God's precise desires as an eventual outcome) would be very difficult to distinguish from a non-teleological version of evolution." I think this statement undercuts your assertion about God as Creator and contradicts the attributes of God defined in Scripture. There is a problem if we cannot distinguish the outcome of a random, undirected process from the sublime handiwork of the biblical God (a junkyard is not a 707). We know that “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.” Thus the creation reveals the attributes and character of God, not a random undirected process. "ID proponents, at least at a cursory view (I have not read any of Behe's or Meyer's books), seem to believe that evolutionary mechanisms (natural selection, neutral theory, and others) are an insufficient explanation for what we can see in the living world - past and present. I would argue that an omnipotent God could absolutely (and most-likely did) establish laws of nature to bring about what we can see." OK it sounds like you’re saying that God front-loaded the process by embedding the necessary information and some kind of intrinsic ability to move toward a pre-defined objective over geological time (like a guided missile). This sounds like “theistic evolution.” I need to think further about this, but initially I have some issues: First, this implies to me that God played a passive rather than an active role in creation, not intervening in the process He initially set in motion (or perhaps initiating extinction events). This contradicts the way I read Scripture, which repeatedly describes His role as active and intentional, “creating all things through and for Christ.” To me a viable theory of origins must be resonant with an organic reading of Scripture, not some form of pretzel logic. For me, theistic evolution requires a big theological stretch. Secondly, theistic evolution must adopt the circular reasoning of evolutionary theory and the faith statements needed to compensate for the lack of geological and experimental data for macroevolution (punctuated equilibrium becomes necessary to explain the data which, IMO, is just another way of saying “supernatural intervention”). Theistic evolution then requires the same level of credulity. I’m not necessarily denying the idea of common descent etc. but believe that intervention is required –natural processes are wholly inadequate to explain large scale phenotypic changes. This is a good discussion. I appreciate you taking the time to respond in a patient manner

If I understand your last comments you seem to be saying that the classic definition of Darwinian evolution cannot be true. Are you suggesting a teleological form of evolution? If so, how does that differ from ID, progressive creationism, theistic evolution or another one of the many creationist theories? Note also that as soon as evolution becomes teleological and, therefore, in some way directed by a Creator the idea becomes subject to the same criticisms leveled at ID, that it is non scientific (which I don't necessarily agree with). If you believe that ID is non scientific then I think whatever form of evolution you posit is also non scientific. I could then conclude that your many positive statements about evolutionary theory are inauthentic, or perhaps you haven't fully thought through the contradictions in your position. Am I wrong here?

Responding to One. Opinion, here are a few thoughts on the subject. First of all, some biblical/philosophical observations (I have additional thoughts for a future volley but want to take this one step at a time). My understanding of evolution is limited, so I will start with what I do know: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Gen. 1:1  All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:1-3 For  by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He  is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Col. 1:16-17 Scripture is clear that God is the Creator of all things, both visible and invisible. Divine creation involves a supernatural, purposeful, directed design process with a specific end in mind (a glorious creation ruled by humanity in the image of God) and, therefore, by definition CANNOT be a random materialistic process. Since Darwinian evolution is BY DEFINITION a materialistic, non teleological process there is a serious logical inconsistency in the statement God “used Darwinian evolution to create.” Either the process was undirected and non teleological (no outcome baked into the process) or it was directed and purposeful – both cannot be true. The evolutionist claims that the Darwinian processes give biological life the appearance of design, but this is in fact an illusion resulting from the creative power of natural selection acting on random mutations. What if the more accurate perspective is that the divine process of creation has produced the illusion of an evolutionary process, due the progressive nature of creation (simple to complex) occurring over long periods of geologic time? Evolutionary theory was then developed as the best explanation of the data based on materialistic processes. Thus Darwinian evolution is in fact the illusion not divine creation. Question: How does the Christian evolutionist reconcile the idea of Darwinian materialism with scriptural view that God actively designed and created, since the two viewpoints are clearly at odds?