Creation: Essential for a Healthy Christian Worldview

[~candice~]

People do it all the time Shiloh.

So what???

You also need to "prove" that it is historical literal.

The burden of proof is not on the status quo. The burden lies with those say that the status quo needs to be changed.

If you or someone else says that the text in Genesis 1-3 is "metaphorical," "parabolic" or "allegorical," the burden lies with you to show the metaphorical devices in the text. Or you need to show where the text indicates that an allegorical method is being employed by the author. Simply claiming it is metaphorical is not sufficient from the standpoint of textual criticism. If the text is a parabolic or allegorical or metaphorical, the provide the internal textual indicators that demonstrate that such claims have any credibility.

It is something you and I believe by faith, not something you can give concrete proof for.

I don't have to prove that Genesis 1 is an actual historical event because if there is no evidence to show that it is allegorical, metaphorical or parabolic, then the default understanding is that this is to be understood as a historical narrative. The Hebrew description is very concrete. The verbiage is such that it is clear that the author wants to be understood as giving us actual history. It is no different than how it describes the story of Abraham, or any of the other historical narratives. Sorry, but if the skeptics and TE'ers want to claim Genesis 1 is not an actual historical account, then they have the bear the intellectual burden for their claim and provide the textual evidence to demonstrate that their claim about metaphors, allegories or parables have a credible basis. They must also explain why the rest of the Bible, including Jesus, in discussing Genesis 1-3 treats it as an actual historical account.

Not to mention the shifting of goal posts that has just occurred...

I haven't moved any goal posts. The only person who has changed in this discussion is you. You NEVER once challenged me on this until now. I have made the same textual challenges to TE'ers over and over and what s their response?? Either they abandon the discussion or want to change the subject because when I ask them to show me in the text that where the metaphors are, they can't. When I ask them to show the internal textual indicators that an allegory is in play, they can't. When I ask them to show where the author indicates that the story is just a parable, they can't. They can't support ONE claim they make. We are just supposed to accept that this story is a parable or an allegory or is metaphorical because that is what they need the story to be to make it fit with evolution??? The story of Genesis can't be true as written and be compatible with the TOE.

I haven't moved any goal posts. I have asked for the same evidence and am making the same textual arguments I have always made and the TE'ers still respond with either dead silence or they want to talk about something else and hope everyone just forgets that they can't really support their claims.

now you also need to prove that your literature rules are correct. And how do you do that?

Why would I need to prove that??? I am using the same universaly recognized rules for literary analysis as secular critics use. They are not mine. They are the same rules used by Christians and nonChristians. Metaphors, allegores and parables are not specific to Christianity and the same rules apply for secular literature as they do for the Bible. So I don't have to go down this silly road of proving anything. I operate from the status quo. Those who say the status quo is wrong are the ones who have the burden to show why it is wrong, absent that, the status quo remains.

Agreeing with status quo doesn't make you right though. There are some who believe the status quo must be metaphoric because of the talking snake and metaphorical tree. And yes, any solid debater will ask you to justify the rules by which you interpret literature. Suggesting you use the rules that the majority use is simply an appeal to popularity, and that won't wash either. I'm not trying to be sassy, it is just what is going to happen in this hypothetical debate.

You and I accept some things about the bible by faith, not by fact. Is that really so dangerous to admit? I believe it is true 100% by faith, because there are some things I simply cannot prove. There are some parts of the bible I believe are literal for no other reason than that is what the Spirit of God puts on my heart. I cannot prove the literalness of the ascention but I believe it is literal without question. Yet there are others who come up with some other interpretation method who deny this. Their rules v's our rules are hard to PROVE (proof is different to assertion), even though we believe this, likely because the Spirit has moved on our hearts. All I'm saying is that this debate, if Viole were to find a counterpart, would be rather unproductive and lead down this exact rabbit trail...

[Guest shiloh357]

Agreeing with status quo doesn't make you right though.

That is true, but that is not my argument. My argument is not that I am right because I agree with the status quo. My argument is that the status quo relative to this issue is that the Genesis account is an actual historical account and that the concrete Hebrew verbiage, the absence any textual indicators that say otherwise, the fact that Jesus and other people in the Old and New Testaments treat it as actual history provide a solid basis for my claims. My position reflects the traditional Christian view of Genesis (the status quo) It is up to the skeptics and the TE'ers to show that the text of Genesis and the rest of the Bible claim that the traditional Christian view needs to be changed to view the text as something else (metaphorical,

There are some who believe the status quo must be metaphoric because of the talking snake and metaphorical tree.

Yes and they could And do argue the same for the story of Moses and the burning bush, the plagues of Egypt, the parting of the red sea, the flood of Noah, the tower of Babel and so on. Where does that end?

The problem is that what they are doing is seeking to "demythologize" the text. Saying that the text is metaphorical because of a talking animal or the tree of life or tree of the knowledge of good and evil isn’t' a cogent argument. They are using the wrong argument. They are claiming it is "metaphorical" or allegorical to get around supernatural elements in the story that they are not prepared to accept or believe. So the metaphorical argument in the cases you describe result from unbelief, not from an argument of faith. If the story is allegorical, then man didn't fall, sin is not a spiritual problem, and Adam and Eve were not real people, which makes redemption from nonexistent sin passed down from a man who never existed in a Garden that never was, a complete and total farce.

And yes, any solid debater will ask you to justify the rules by which you interpret literature.

A solid debater would recognize the rules of literary analysis. Only a desperate debater who can't argue on the merits of evidence would turn to such a weak and ineffective line of argumentation.

Suggesting you use the rules that the majority use is simply an appeal to popularity, and that won't wash either. I'm not trying to be sassy, it is just what is going to happen in this hypothetical debate.

No, it is not an appeal to popularity. An appeal to popularity is when I argue that "x" number of people agree with my position so it must it be true. It is when I try to base the correctness of my line of argumentation on how many people agree with me, that I am employing an appeal to argumentation. Asking me to prove that the rules of literary analysis are true is a weak and ineffective tactic and is an indicator that one does not have a substantive textual case to make for their textual claim. It means that they cannot bear the intellectual burden they have placed on themselves. Since they can't defeat or refute the argument, they try to attack literary analysis itself.

You and I accept some things about the bible by faith, not by fact. Is that really so dangerous to admit?

I operate from fact and faith. The fact is, that when a person makes a textual argument, they have to provide the textual evidence that supports that argument.

I believe it is true 100% by faith, because there are some things I simply cannot prove.

But that is not what is at issue here. The issue is that the claims of TE'ers and others that historical narratives are not really historical at all and never really happened on the basis that they are just allegories, parables or metaphors is a serious textual issue that demands textual evidence to demonstrate as true. So far, they can't provide it.

There are some parts of the bible I believe are literal for no other reason than that is what the Spirit of God puts on my heart. I cannot prove the literalness of the ascension but I believe it is literal without question.

But now you are confusing issues. I am not talking about "literalness" of the event. I am discussing the intent of the author. Does the author want me to believe that the ascension of Jesus is historical, or does he want me to view it as a metaphor or allegory??? The issue in Genesis is whether or not the author wants me to believe that it is an allegory. The question for TE'ers and skeptics is whether or not the author gives you the permission to view his account as an allegory or a metaphor, or does he expect you to take his account as an actual historical event?

I can't prove that the Creation account occurred as written. That is a foregone conclusion. But that is not really the issue. The issue is whether or not the author intends it to be understood as happening as written.

Yet there are others who come up with some other interpretation method who deny this. Their rules v's our rules are hard to PROVE (proof is different to assertion), even though we believe this, likely because the Spirit has moved on our hearts. All I'm saying is that this debate, if Viole were to find a counterpart, would be rather unproductive and lead down this exact rabbit trail...

I have never claimed to be able to "prove" anything. That is a word that you guys throw around. I am not as free and loose with that word as others. I don't use that word because it sets up a certain level of expectation in the minds of others that I might or might not be able to meet. I simply provide evidence for my rationale. At any rate, I don't have to prove anything about the rules literary analysis. There are people who do make up their own rules of interpretation in order to get the kind of results they want, but not all methods are created equal.

[Guest shiloh357]

One, the original authors of the Bible didn't follow the same literary devices and rules that you are describing.

The literary patterns of the ancient Hebrew writers is well known. The literary analysis of Genesis is pretty solid, so that argument does't fly.

Two, the original authors of the Bible believed the story they heard and reported was historically accurate and wrote it as such, though that doesn't imply that it was historically accurate.

Yes, but that would mean that the story isn't an allegory or a parable or a metaphor. Did the events occur as written? I can't prove they did, but that is not the issue here. The issue is the intent of the author. As you stated, they believed it was true and wrote it as history, not as myth. The concrete imagery of the Hebrew also lends itself tot that conclusion as well.

[~candice~]

Shiloh it isn't dishonest to ask you to defend the literary rules by which you have interpreted the bible. It is the essence of the debate really. The error of TE is that they define rules in such a way, so that their position can be easily asserted given those rules. Their rules are flawed. But rules cannot be accepted just because the majority of experts assert that these are the rules. Appeal to authority? When you think about it, the same debate tactic would only be turned on it's head, and used against you. Just replace literary experts with evolution experts. Are you going to accept as true the rules by which science needs to be interpretted, as given by the majority of evolution experts, without those rules first needed to be defined and defended?

The TE debate is a nightmare. But like it or not, you do need to defend EVERYTHING you use in a debate. Otherwise you are arguing assumptions, and your opposition can do the same. But then it isn't really a debate .

Better to just acknowledge that some things we accept as true by faith. I don't think there is anything shameful in doing this.

[Guest shiloh357]

The literary patterns of the ancient Hebrew writers is well known. The literary analysis of Genesis is pretty solid, so that argument does't fly.

Just because there were literary patterns at the time doesn't mean that specific author followed those literary patterns. I don't even follow the same literary patterns within my own writing...

Yeah, uh... we can determine that from the text itself. Literary criticism didn't just appear on the scene yesterday.

Yes, but that would mean that the story isn't an allegory or a parable or a metaphor. Did the events occur as written? I can't prove they did, but that is not the issue here. The issue is the intent of the author. As you stated, they believed it was true and wrote it as history, not as myth. The concrete imagery of the Hebrew also lends itself tot that conclusion as well.

Why is the intent of the author an issue?

Because when someone writes something they want to be understood. Otherwise why write?? The "interpretation" of any text is based on what the and only the author wants us to take from what he has written. How would you like it if someone took your words to mean something you didn't intend?? Are people free to take your words and attribute to you anything they want, or do you prefer for people to listen to you and understand you?

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh it isn't dishonest to ask you to defend the literary rules by which you have interpreted the bible.

I didn't say it was dishonest, I said it was a desperate and ineffective tactic. If you can't defeat the argument then the only thing left to do is to muddy the waters about how metaphors, allegories and parables work.

It is the essence of the debate really.

No, it's not the essence of debate. The fact is that if you claim a text is allegorical, but can't show any textual indicators that demonstrate an allegorical method on the part on the part of the author, your argument has failed and it should be conceded as such. But what I am getting here is that if someone claims that the text is allegorical, but can't demonstrate an allegorical method is true, their next move is force me to prove that we really konw what allegorical means or that anyone really knows how to read text and make sense of it. That is what literary analysis does. It helps us make sense of what we are reading. But what I am seeing is an attempt to trash the very same rules we use everyday when we read a newspaper, or a cookbook or a biography. What you are saying is that I have to prove the veracity of the very rules that you intuitvely use on an everyday basis at work and elsewhere. That is a ridiculous expectation and a desperate one at that.

The error of TE is that they define rules in such a way, so that their position can be easily asserted given those rules. Their rules are flawed. But rules cannot be accepted just because the majority of experts assert that these are the rules.

I am not appealing to experts. I am talking about the rules we have learned when we had lessons on reading comprehension in grade school and use every day. Hermeneutics is nothing but an refinement of everyday thinking.

Appeal to authority? When you think about it, the same debate tactic would only be turned on it's head, and used against you. Just replace literary experts with evolution experts. Are you going to accept as true the rules by which science needs to be interpretted, as given by the majority of evolution experts, without those rules first needed to be defined and defended?

If I had made an appeal to authority, you might have a point. But that is not and has not been the appeal I have made.

The TE debate is a nightmare. But like it or not, you do need to defend EVERYTHING you use in a debate. Otherwise you are arguing assumptions, and your opposition can do the same. But then it isn't really a debate .

I don't have to defend the rules of objective literary analysis with the Bible anymore than I have to defend it when I read a biography of George Washington or Julius Caesar. The only reason people want to make an issue of literary analysis where the Bible is concerned is that they don't want to believe what is written and must find a way to intellectually justify their unbelief.

Better to just acknowledge that some things we accept as true by faith. I don't think there is anything shameful in doing this.

That only applies to the events themselves, not to how the author's intend for us to understand what they have written. The TE'ers have made textual, not "faith" arguments, and textual arguments require textual responses.

[Guest]

... One, the original authors of the Bible didn't follow the same literary devices and rules that you are describing.

Two, the original authors of the Bible believed the story they heard and reported was historically accurate and wrote it as such, though that doesn't imply that it was historically accurate.

Three, as Lewis Black stated, "This was a story told to people in the desert to distract them from the fact that they didn't have air conditioning." Edgar Allen Poe pulled the same stunt in his novel The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym. He even heavily implied in the introduction that the book was partly authored by Pym himself. That doesn't mean the events that occurred in the book were fact....

Or Number Four,

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

The Bible Was Inspired By God Himself

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:21

Who Is Far Bigger Than All Of Mankind Past, Present And Future Laid End To End

Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made, and those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. Isaiah 66:1-2

And Those Learned Desert Grandfathers Of Ours, Well They Were And Still Are Far Wiser Then The Modern Irrational Smart Alec

Daily See Prancing About University And Preaching His Beliefs In Evolutionary Dogmas And Fables

He Who Is A Hopeless Fool, Vainly Heckling His Elders

Like The Little School Boy He Is

How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Proverbs 1:22

And He Will Give An Accounting For His Words, Peer Reviewed Or Not

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Matthew 12:36

And As For The Engineer's Air Conditioning, Shortly It Will Become The Lest Of His Thoughts

And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:6-8

~

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And Be Blessed Beloved

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Joe

[Guest shiloh357]

ToE isn't designed to rule out Genesis any more than it is designed to rule out Greek mythology.

Which part of "impersonal, unguided, unplanned and wholly natural" don't you understand. The TOE is custom designed to rule out any deity or intelligent influence, catalyst or involvement. You are either dishonest or you really don't understand the TOE.

Is it possible that the physical evidence simply doesn't support Genesis, and that's why the last two centuries or so of scientific thought is contradictory to a (wooden) literal interpretation of Genesis, including ToE?

See here you go with trying to associate a literal interpretation with a wooden interpretation. Those are not the same thing. A wooden interpretation is based on a face-value approach to the Bible. A literal interpretation is based on the intent of the author.

I would argue that what we see happening is that there is a foregone assumption that Evolution is true and the evidence is filtered through that assumption. I would also argue that there is a lot of "selective" interpretation where the evidence is concerned. I say that because I have noted in times past the degree of logical absurdity that Evolutionists and atheists will descend to in order to preserve unbelief, such as assuming that continuous, consistent logical, uniformed order and design can exist without any intelligent source. In addition, I am not convinced that scientists are being completely honest about the evidence and what it shows. History is replete with evolutionary hoaxes. Scientists are human beings with the same human foibles. They are not robots that simply live in cold anti-sceptic evironments. They have biases and prejudices and beliefs just like the rest of us. They do live in a world, though, that the majority of us don't have ready access to and they have access to evidence that most of us don't. It is easy to fall to the temptation to skew the evidence to favor their own personal convictions, particularly when they know that most people do not have the resources to chalenge them.

When the Roman Catholic Church had the only Bibles and the laity had no access to a Bible, the RCC was able to skew doctrine and pretty get people to acquiese to anything they said because the average person was iliterate and could not read the Bible for themselves. I view the scientific community the same way. They are able to project the appearance of infallibility because they are in a position that allows them to tell us what the evidence is and what the evidence says, and how we should view the universe and its origins. Any evidence that might exist that challenges their position is either ignored or if it can't be ignored, those who point out its existence are demonized as bafoons and stooges.

I know we probably both sound like a broken record to each other, but philosophical naturalism doesn't mean contradictory to Genesis, but contradictory to any and everything supernatural.

But Genesis IS a supernatural account of Creation. There is a supernatural envronment involved in many of the stories of Genesis, such as the flood and the tower of Babel.

In order to be philosophical naturalism it must reject Genesis, but it must also reject a whole slew of other things as well. I said it before, but I'll grant you that ToE is fully incompatible with Christianity for the subject of whether or not ToE is philosophically naturalistic. I think to talk about whether or not ToE is compatible with Christianity will distract us from the real discussion here, and we can pick it up later if you want.

Since philosophical naturalism means that there is no spiritual anything, if ToE is philosophically naturalistic as you claim than ToE is incompatible with Deism where God just set up the laws of nature and evolution is just a by-product of those laws where evolution can be totally impersonal, unplanned, and unguided in the same sense that ToE is all those things in a scientific setting. That is why I asked you to demonstrate how ToE is incompatible with that Deism scenario I've thrown out multiple times, because in order for ToE to be philosophically naturalistic as you claim, it must be antithetical to such notions as well. And that's why I'll ask you again to show us how ToE is incompatible with that deistic scenario.

Philosophical naturalism is incompatible with any theistic scenario. That is why it is embraced by atheists. Philosophical naturalism works from the view that there are no deities.

Desim is also incompatible with a Christian worldview as well.

1. Since Deism is the view that God is not involved with man or life here on earth, it contradicts the biblical teaching of a divine Savior who loves man and came to redeem man from sin

2. It is ultimately humanistic because in Deism, God did not give us His word that discloses His nature and existence and love for mankind. Thus sin, redemption, salvation eternal life are the result of human prefereces and not the result of a Divine revelation of God to humanity through His word.

3. In Deism, God is not the moral judge of humnanity. There is no system of Divine justices that either rewards or punishes. It usurps God's divine role as the eternal judge of the universe. Consequently, n Deism there is no objective standard of right and wrong. From that perspective molesting a child is no less moral than enjoying a bag of Doritos.

That is why I say that Evolution doesn't look like God. In order to make evolution work, you have to resort to humanism, ultimately.

I think what you are failing to grasp is that Christianity can't be lumped in together with other forms of "theism." Not all theistc ideas are equal. Christianity offers far more and far better than any other theistc notion that exists.

Well it is incompatible with gravity as a science, it's dubbed theistic gravity - it is the combination of science and theology. In that regard it is antithetical to gravity in the same sense that TE is incompatible with evolution as TE is a combination of science and theology too.

I think the problem is that you have no real understanding of God and how He interacts with His creation. Creation was a supernatural event. And God who is, at the bare minimum, supernatural, supernaturally guies and sustains all that He created. He is the reason that the laws still continue to work. He is the reason that gravity still works.

The problem with Evolution is that it doesn't look or act like God. The very notion of racism and inferior ethnicities comes straight out of an evolutoinary worldview. The Nazi philosophy was that inferior races and ideologies needed to be eradicated so that would be room for the stronger, more fit superior races to thrive. Margaret Sanger, the noted feminist, founder of Planned Parenthood and pro-abortion advocate viewed abortion as a means of weeding out inferior people before they had time to grow and use up valuable resources that should only reserved for the superior people. She said that Evolution had a major effect on her view of the world and people. She was racist and felt that blacks were an inferior and unfit race from an evolutoinary standpoint.

Sanger believed she was ‘working in accord with the universal law of evolution’.12 She maintained that the brains of Australian Aborigines were only one step more evolved than chimpanzees and just under blacks, Jews and Italians.13 When arguing for eugenics, Sanger quoted Darwin as an authority when discussing ‘natural checks’ of the population, such as war, which helped to reduce the population.14 Her magazine even argued for ‘state-sponsored sterilization programs’, forcibly sterilizing the ‘less capable’.15 She won many academics and scientists to her cause, including Harvard University sociologists E. M. East, University of Michigan President Clarence C. Little and Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Alfred Meyer.16 Source

She also opposed charity because it allowed the less fit to survive and propagate more unfit children.21 The influence of Darwin on Sanger’s racism ideas is obvious from her writings. For example she wrote, "The lower down in the scale of human development we go the less sexual control we find. It is said the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets." (Same source as above quote)

[Guest shiloh357]

Continued from Previous Post...

You didn't address my concern about using double standards when it comes to gravity and evolution. You refuse to look at gravity through the eyes of science and insist on looking at it ontologically instead, yet you refuse to allow the same when it comes to evolution - by somehow looking at evolution ontologically it is betraying the science yet it isn't so when looking at gravity ontologically. Either look at both ontologically or both through pure science, not gravity one way and evolution another, it's dishonest.

I am not operating from a doublestandard at all. I am looking at both Evolution and gravity through the lens of Scripture. Gravity is a natural law that God created. It testifies of a God of order, logic and wisdom/power. Evolution, on the other hand, doesn't look or act like God at all.

If you want to say that God can control/create/use evolution, but it is just not God's nature to do so, that's fine - it just doesn't mean that ToE is philosophical naturalism, only that it is incompatible with your beliefs about God which it obviously is.

I would not say that at all. God did not create evolution and thus he doesn't control it or use it. The TOE is philosophical naturalistic in nature because it must deny a personal Creator who planned, purposed and guides/sustains the universe He created. Can be an evolutionist OR you can believe the Bible, but you can't have both, and no amount of intellectual gymnastics will get you around that reality.

But even if evolution does destroy a belief in a personal creator (can you demonstrate that is ToEs intention?), what about deism where God is not seen as 'personal'? What I see from you is trying to show that ToE is incompatible with Christianity, but not addressing the real issue of philosophical naturalism - which is an incompatibility with all things supernatural.

I have addressed all of that, previously.

ToE has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or the origin of life, I know you know this because I've seen you post it. I don't think evolution seeks to erode belief in God; I've mentioned several times that the co-founder of ToE was a theist, and an outspoken theist at that.

From the standpoint of methodological naturalism, it is not a creative theory. I have stated that several times and people have basically ignored me on that assertion, but from the philosophical naturalistic point, it IS a denial of a Creator as the source of life. The origin of life is actually bigger problem for naturalists than evolution.

I don't know how it is different from all other parts of science, except that many conservative Christians find it incompatible with their beliefs (but that's true with many things in science from geology to physics). Is it the 'wholly naturalistic' part? All of science is entirely naturalistic too, even gravity - you add to the theory of gravity when you talk about how God made it. Impersonal and unguided? So is everything in science, no where in any science is God said to be intervening or having a personal relationship with anything. Unplanned? I could say a few things on this, but I'd rather hear your thoughts first so I don't write a paragraph and have it be irrelevant to your point.

"Wholly naturalistic" means that there was no person involved. No supernatural intelligence. That precludes God on any and every level. Anyone who is honest about that will admit it. There is nothing about the material universe that is unguided or unplanned. Everything in the universe is the result of a personal Creator who purposed and deisgned it. You seem to keep trying to skew the issue as if I am anti-Science and I'm not. The problem is that you keep trying to divorce Creation from the creator and you act as if the declarations of scientists are infallible and they are not. Science is limited in scope. There is a supernatural element to the universe that science can't detect, and for that reason, science as a source of knowledge and understanding of the unverse is incomplete.

Do you understand that you can reject Christ and not subscribe to philosophical naturalism? That's essentially my entire point this post.

Yes, I know that. I know people who believe in God and even believe God made the universe, but reject Jesus anyway because they love their fornication, alcohol, and all of their other sins too much to turn their lives over to Jesus.

That, and again asking how ToE is philosophical naturalism and not just incompatible with your religious convictions, or even incompatible with Christianity.

I have answered that numerous times. I am not going to keep answering it just because you don't like the answer.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, is it your contention that human beings were designed perfectly? I thought I recalled you stating that the creative actions in Genesis were "perfect". I thought it was "good" but you seem to interpret this a bit differently.

God is perfect and cannot create imperfect creatures. He cannot create imperfectly. The imperfections in humanity, such as, evil deeds, handicaps, disability, susceptibility to sickness, disease and death are the direct result of sin. Those things were not originally engineered into creation.