Guest shiloh357 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 ToE doesn't argue that everything came into being by purely natural means without the assistance of a creator. Yes iit does and every major proponent of Evolution says so. The attraction of evolution to atheists is the very philosophically naturalistic explanation that the TOE provides. The entire debate would have been over a long time ago, had the TOE not been viewed by both sides of the debate as a competeting theory over not only Divine origin of the universe but the method by which life developed. Your assertion is simply false and denies decades and decades of history. That has nothing to do with the theory - the theory is about explaining the mechanisms of observed phenomena and facts. It has everything to do with the theory. The TOE is about being entirely naturalistic without the influence of any outside intelligence and it is about the mechanisms. You are trying to make this an either/or thing. Sorry, but your attempt to redefine evolution to get around the basic problems it poses for Christianity is going to get off the ground. At the same time gravity gives as much credit to God in formulating gravity and holding up its laws as does evolution give credit to God for guiding the process or holding up existence in such a way that makes evolution an emergent property of natural providence. You really cannot say that evolution is naturally philosophical yet gravity isn't. Sure I can. You are trying to compare two dissimilar things. Gravity is a natural law. We see it operate everyday. We use it. It can be a tool. We depend on it for our survival as gravity effects not only us but the rest of the planets as well. Gravity as a natural law gives evidence of a logical, Desiginer who gives uniform order to the universe. Gravity does not say, "there is a God." But it does provide evidence from which an argument for wise and powerful Creator can be made. Evolution is a theory that people use to explain origins and it is commonly viewed as an explanatory alternative to the biblical view. Evolution and natural selection do not look like God, don't act like God. In fact the TOE says that natural selection is just that: IT is wholly natural without any outside influence or design. It is completely impersonal. To argue that an impersonal mode of creation is enacted by a personal God/Creator simply isn't tenable. I've only seen you address how evolution doesn't jive with your interpretation of Christianity and God, not how evolution is philosophically naturalistic. More accurattely, what you have seen is me address how Evolution doesn't jive with the Bible. I have repeatedly explained that Evolution (and I got this from evolutionists who are more competent and knowledgeable than you) is held up by its proponents as an alternativeto to the Bible. If it were merely methodological naturalistic, there would be far less controversy. But it isn't. It is held up as being a better explanation than the Bible. That is why it is philosophically naturalistic. It is held up that way in order to refute the existence and/or involvement of God in creation process. And I agree, your version of Christianity is incompatible with evolution, as it is incompatible with nearly all science in the past 100 years or more. My version of Christianity was the view of many scientists who were believers, long before Evolution came along. In fact, modern science was pretty founded by Christians who believed the Bible. Yes, theist doesn't mean Christian. And Philosophical naturalism does not mean only against Christianity. You can be dead against Christianity in all forms and still not be a philosophical naturalist. I'm not using code words where "theist" means "only Christian". "Theist" means "theist", and Christianity is only a sub-set of theism and theism is a sub-set of supernatural thought/belief as I've stated many times now. I'm not arguing whether or not evolution is compatible with your views, I know they're not. And while I think evolution is compatible with Christianity, that is no where close to the subject at hand; what I am saying is that evolutionary theory is not philosophically naturalistic, it is methodologically naturalistic like everything else in science. Just like gravity is. There is a version of Christianity with which the TOE is perfectly compatible. It is a version of Christianity that doesn't have Christ in it. It is a version of Christianity that deines the essential authority of the Bible and has no problem treating the Bible like a smorgasboard from which they can pick and choose according to their taste. It is cultural and impotent version of Christianity made up by men and women who are trying to have their cake and eat it too. I know many atheists that disagree with Dawkins, and I bet that if Dawkins lived in the 16th century he'd think that Copernicus' theory would make you a self fulfilled atheist instead. Either way, this is Dawkins personal opinion, and he is not reflecting the view of the scientific community here nor is he giving a science lesson. I can easily just point to Collins, or Miller, or even the co-founder of evolution itself to show evolutionary theory is not inherently philosophically naturalistic, at least in the same sense that gravity is. Anyone can have religion or ascribe to a religion and be an evolutionist There are lots of cultural Christians who are ardent, committed evolutionists. But they are not disciples of Jesus. The problem is that when you get beneath the surface, you will find that their "theology" is one of compromise and a selective belief in or acceptance of Scripture. Evolution cannot be made compatible with the Bible if one holds to the absolute inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture. Some might claim to be the Bible to be inspired or inerrant, but often I have found that those who hold to evolution and make such claims, have their own definition of what inspiration and inerrancy mean and they never hold to the standard Christian doctrines of inerrancy and inspiration. That's all nice an' dandy, but it doesn't address the subject at all. Fact remains, you can still believe in the supernatural and God - thus antithetical to philosophical naturalism by definition - and not be close to believing in Christianity or Christ or the One True God. My point was that there is only God and only one way to God. Sure you can believe in other gods and in that sense be a theist, but my point is that Christianity is not on an equal footing with any other version of theism. Christianty is far and away unique to any other version and is the only true faith in the world. I understand all of that, I even stated it several times in this thread. However, you need to come to grips with basic scientific philosophy in that God is precluded as a scientific explanation. Science knows it has limits, it doesn't pontificate about the supernatural which is the realm of God. Therefore science precludes, to make impossible; science makes it impossible for God to be a scientific explanation. Thus you cannot say evolutionary theory precludes God while gravity doesn't; both preclude God as a scientific explanation but are silent regarding explanations dealing with the meta/supernatural. Shiloh, do you see the difference between a scientific explanation and an ontological one? Do you see the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism? Do you see that you can reject Christianity and not be a philosophical naturalist? Yes, I understand all of that. I also understand that you are trying make this about methodological naturalism vs. philosophical naturalism. You are in a state of denial if you think that both type of naturalism are not at work in the TOE. It isnt either/or. It is both/and. That is why Creation stands in opposition to Evolution. Genesis 1-3 establish a lot of important theology that the rest of the Bible builds upon in terms of redemption. It establishes God as Creator, Redeemer and Judge. More to the point, the Bible building on these establishes Jesus as the One who stands as the chief, the very head of Creation. He is the Creator, the One who brought it all into being. He, by right of Creation, was the One who also died to redeem Creation from sin and will be the One who is able to stand in judgment on creation, particularly mankind. From the first to the last, the Bible's theme is redemption and Genesis 1-3 sets the whole thing in motion. If one removes that, if Genesis becomes nothing but a parable or an allegory, then man didn't really fall and we are not really sinners, sin and death is just part of our evolutionary development, and not part of something we dont' really need redemption from. If sin and death are just part of our evolutionary development, then don't need Jesus to deliever us form something that is hardwired into us. There are a lot of TE'ers who think that by giving lip service to believing in Jesus for salvation frees them up to believe anything else they choose to beleive and they live under the delusion of a disjointed view of the Bible. What they don't understand is that the Bible is interconnected and that the essential theology of salvation is wrapped up in every part, so it is not possible to asssent to certain NT teachings yet reject the authority of the Bible in other areas. It just doesn't work that way. One cannot be an ardent, committed evolutionist and a disciple of Jesus. You have to make a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted April 5, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,855 Content Per Day: 8.05 Reputation: 21,842 Days Won: 77 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I agree. But what seems to be lost is that accepting methodological naturalism is not synonymous with the strong statement that "God didn't create". The two are not polar opposites, and as you are saying, one does not really inform the other. Studying the naturalistic process by which creation occurred is not the same as attributing those processes to a Creator. Evolution is not compatible with the physical-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, but it the physical-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 doesn't get to define who is (authentically) Christian and who isn't. If we destroy the foundation for which we stand ... well we know about the wise man and the foolish man! The written Word is the foundation for which stand before the Living Word which will then tell us whether we are really standing or just trying to slip through unnoticed.... God will not allow the tares to inhibit our fruit as wheat. Simply God uses The Word 'His Son' to lead us to Him in Heaven... satan uses The Word to lead to him here! Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted April 5, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.88 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 5, 2012 I agree. But what seems to be lost is that accepting methodological naturalism is not synonymous with the strong statement that "God didn't create". The two are not polar opposites, and as you are saying, one does not really inform the other. Studying the naturalistic process by which creation occurred is not the same as attributing those processes to a Creator. Evolution is not compatible with the physical-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, but it the physical-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 doesn't get to define who is (authentically) Christian and who isn't. If we destroy the foundation for which we stand ... well we know about the wise man and the foolish man! The written Word is the foundation for which stand before the Living Word which will then tell us whether we are really standing or just trying to slip through unnoticed.... God will not allow the tares to inhibit our fruit as wheat. Simply God uses The Word 'His Son' to lead us to Him in Heaven... satan uses The Word to lead to him here! Love, Steven How does what I just said destroy the foundation for which we stand??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkins Posted April 6, 2012 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 290 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/25/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted April 6, 2012 (edited) ToE doesn't argue that everything came into being by purely natural means without the assistance of a creator. Yes iit does and every major proponent of Evolution says so. The attraction of evolution to atheists is the very philosophically naturalistic explanation that the TOE provides. The entire debate would have been over a long time ago, had the TOE not been viewed by both sides of the debate as a competeting theory over not only Divine origin of the universe but the method by which life developed. Your assertion is simply false and denies decades and decades of history. Evolution is never about evolution. Even from his statement one can tell that ToE is a product of deception. And I guess the "Origin of Species" never says anything about the origin of species. Edited April 6, 2012 by Hawkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted April 6, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.88 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 6, 2012 ToE doesn't argue that everything came into being by purely natural means without the assistance of a creator. Yes iit does and every major proponent of Evolution says so. The attraction of evolution to atheists is the very philosophically naturalistic explanation that the TOE provides. The entire debate would have been over a long time ago, had the TOE not been viewed by both sides of the debate as a competeting theory over not only Divine origin of the universe but the method by which life developed. Your assertion is simply false and denies decades and decades of history. Evolution is never about evolution. Even from his statement one can tell that ToE is a product of deception. How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkins Posted April 6, 2012 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 290 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 45 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/25/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted April 6, 2012 (edited) ToE doesn't argue that everything came into being by purely natural means without the assistance of a creator. Yes iit does and every major proponent of Evolution says so. The attraction of evolution to atheists is the very philosophically naturalistic explanation that the TOE provides. The entire debate would have been over a long time ago, had the TOE not been viewed by both sides of the debate as a competeting theory over not only Divine origin of the universe but the method by which life developed. Your assertion is simply false and denies decades and decades of history. Evolution is never about evolution. Even from his statement one can tell that ToE is a product of deception. How? Evolution is never about evolution, while the origin of species is never about the origin of species. Aren't this deceptions? To be more specific, ToE can be about evolution when needed, but it's not about evolution at all when needed in some other times. Same the same, Origin of Species is about origin of species when needed, but it's not about origin of species in some other times when needed (by the evolutionists). If you can't sense deception inside these, I can't help the much. Edited April 6, 2012 by Hawkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted April 6, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.88 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 6, 2012 ToE doesn't argue that everything came into being by purely natural means without the assistance of a creator. Yes iit does and every major proponent of Evolution says so. The attraction of evolution to atheists is the very philosophically naturalistic explanation that the TOE provides. The entire debate would have been over a long time ago, had the TOE not been viewed by both sides of the debate as a competeting theory over not only Divine origin of the universe but the method by which life developed. Your assertion is simply false and denies decades and decades of history. Evolution is never about evolution. Even from his statement one can tell that ToE is a product of deception. How? Evolution is never about evolution, while the origin of species is never about the origin of species. Aren't this deceptions? To be more specific, ToE can be about evolution when needed, but it's not about evolution at all when needed in some other times. Same the same, Origin of Species is about origin of species when needed, but it's not about origin of species in some other times when needed (by the evolutionists). If you can't sense deception inside these, I can't help the much. I'm just saying that science (and evolution by default) are (supposed to be, if used correctly!) neutral about the existence of God and all things spiritual. Science is a tool. Is that tool sometimes misused by some atheists to make it reach the conclusion against God? Yes it is. But is that the tools fault, or the person using it? The scientific method isn't flawed, what is flawed is people inferring spiritual truths from something naturalistic, when they shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted April 6, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.88 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 6, 2012 I'm just saying that science (and evolution by default) are (supposed to be, if used correctly!) neutral about the existence of God and all things spiritual. Science is a tool. Is that tool sometimes misused by some atheists to make it reach the conclusion against God? Yes it is. But is that the tools fault, or the person using it? The scientific method isn't flawed, what is flawed is people inferring spiritual truths from something naturalistic, when they shouldn't. You don't need evolution to decide there are no Gods. And you don't need to refute evolution to decide that there is a god/(s) / God. It is naturalistic, not spiritual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted April 6, 2012 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,855 Content Per Day: 8.05 Reputation: 21,842 Days Won: 77 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I agree. But what seems to be lost is that accepting methodological naturalism is not synonymous with the strong statement that "God didn't create". The two are not polar opposites, and as you are saying, one does not really inform the other. Studying the naturalistic process by which creation occurred is not the same as attributing those processes to a Creator. Evolution is not compatible with the physical-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, but it the physical-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 doesn't get to define who is (authentically) Christian and who isn't. If we destroy the foundation for which we stand ... well we know about the wise man and the foolish man! The written Word is the foundation for which stand before the Living Word which will then tell us whether we are really standing or just trying to slip through unnoticed.... God will not allow the tares to inhibit our fruit as wheat. Simply God uses The Word 'His Son' to lead us to Him in Heaven... satan uses The Word to lead to him here! Love, Steven How does what I just said destroy the foundation for which we stand??? The Word is Spirit and Life and if the beginnings are doubted in so much that we interpret from the power of our own observation- we are placing our trust in ourselves and not In Spirit... Only God was there- even the creation itself was not till God said 'let there be' how then can it know any more about it's own resource even as we? exampled 1 Kings 22:22-23 22 The Lord said to him, 'In what way?' So he said, 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And the Lord said, 'You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.' 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you." NKJV God's created can witness lies as well as truth.... either way God's Holiness and Righteousness cannot be thwarted! I like best this understanding that either way satan had chosen - remain in his created place or step out an try to overthrow God= God would be Glorified! This seen in Pharaoh- either way his choice but outcome was already decided to the Glory of God. The Foundation then is in Spirit we understand the creation but not through creation is the Spirit understood (hence the parables). It is satan who has the created ability to deceive the very elect "If God would allow!" If a people try any other way than that which 'IS' provided The Spiritual foundation through faith in God's Word they will not succeed! John 10:1-6 10 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." NKJV Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~candice~ Posted April 6, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 955 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 11,318 Content Per Day: 1.88 Reputation: 448 Days Won: 33 Joined: 12/16/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 6, 2012 I agree. But what seems to be lost is that accepting methodological naturalism is not synonymous with the strong statement that "God didn't create". The two are not polar opposites, and as you are saying, one does not really inform the other. Studying the naturalistic process by which creation occurred is not the same as attributing those processes to a Creator. Evolution is not compatible with the physical-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, but it the physical-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 doesn't get to define who is (authentically) Christian and who isn't. If we destroy the foundation for which we stand ... well we know about the wise man and the foolish man! The written Word is the foundation for which stand before the Living Word which will then tell us whether we are really standing or just trying to slip through unnoticed.... God will not allow the tares to inhibit our fruit as wheat. Simply God uses The Word 'His Son' to lead us to Him in Heaven... satan uses The Word to lead to him here! Love, Steven How does what I just said destroy the foundation for which we stand??? The Word is Spirit and Life and if the beginnings are doubted in so much that we interpret from the power of our own observation- we are placing our trust in ourselves and not In Spirit... Only God was there- even the creation itself was not till God said 'let there be' how then can it know any more about it's own resource even as we? exampled 1 Kings 22:22-23 22 The Lord said to him, 'In what way?' So he said, 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And the Lord said, 'You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.' 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you." NKJV God's created can witness lies as well as truth.... either way God's Holiness and Righteousness cannot be thwarted! I like best this understanding that either way satan had chosen - remain in his created place or step out an try to overthrow God= God would be Glorified! This seen in Pharaoh- either way his choice but outcome was already decided to the Glory of God. The Foundation then is in Spirit we understand the creation but not through creation is the Spirit understood (hence the parables). It is satan who has the created ability to deceive the very elect "If God would allow!" If a people try any other way than that which 'IS' provided The Spiritual foundation through faith in God's Word they will not succeed! John 10:1-6 10 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers." NKJV Love, Steven I honestly have no idea what you are saying . I did not say God was not the creator nor do I deny the truth of Genesis or indeed the whole bible. So . Have you forgotten our PM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts