[_ Old Earth _] Creation and Evolution Presentation

[turnorburn]

turnorburn said

When men talk about believing in God that's nothing new, how does Jesus Christ fit into this doctrine? Its a man made doctrine stating that we evolved from a lower life form, Gods word states he spoke us into existence, which is it?

Where is Jesus in all of this?

tob

 

[turnorburn]

Christianity & Science: That's what the shingle says, then it goes on to say "Discuss science topics such as creation and evolution and how they relate to Christianity" Nothing out of line with my question, just trying to make a point. Science isn't out to prove the existence of God, to glorify God, to lift Jesus up, that's what we as Christians are commanded to do.. The bible was written by men guided by the holy spirit, the doctrine of evolution was written by man guided by the spirit of man. There was a day when i believed books written by man, not anymore, not since i met the Master..

tob

 

[Milk-Drops]

Christianity & Science: That's what the shingle says, then it goes on to say "Discuss science topics such as creation and evolution and how they relate to Christianity" Nothing out of line with my question, just trying to make a point.

Actually, the problem I'm having with your posts is that you make massive assumptions and statements, and challenged on these, you back away and change the subject. The question remains, if you can't defend what you assert, then why trust what you claim to say about religion?

Science isn't out to prove the existence of God, to glorify God, to lift Jesus up, that's what we as Christians are commanded to do..

Exactly. Science is a tool. You don't have to agree with it, its just very useful.

the doctrine of evolution was written by man guided by the spirit of man.

There is no doctrine. There is no religion. The theory is the collection of observations, applications, and data surrounding what has been observed and tested about organisms. Its no more doctrine than gravity.

 

[turnorburn]

How does evolution relate to Jesus Christ? That's the title of the forum

tob

 

[Barbarian]

How does evolution relate to Jesus Christ?

It's just His way of creating living things. God uses nature for almost everything in this world.

 

[turnorburn]

Then your saying that Jesus created man through a process that lasted over a period of thousands of years?

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Then your saying that Jesus created man through a process that lasted over a period of thousands of years?

Well over that period of time. The idea that the days in Genesis are literal ones, has never been the majority view among Christians. Even ancient Christians like St. Augustine realized that one could not reconcile literal days with Genesis, without logical absurdities like mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

The modern YE doctrine was invented by Seventh-Day Adventists in the last century. It's a new re-interpretation of Genesis.

 

[turnorburn]

Preconceived ideas; that's where science and Jesus clash, for that matter that's where man and Jesus clash, as for the majority, majority only counts when we're voting for the next president, God is a majority unto himself. Maybe if you put those books aside and read a story about a man and God and insurmountable odds, its a story about a man named Gideon, its found in the book of Judges chapters 6-7. This will give you an idea about the size of the enemy Gideon faced..

Judges 7:12 And the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the children of the east lay along in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude; and their camels were without number, as the sand by the sea side for multitude.


Might want to reconsider that piece about those verses Moses wrote, the morning and the evening being logical absurdities, as you'll see in that story God isn't logical the way we understand the meaning..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Preconceived ideas; that's where science and Jesus clash, for that matter that's where man and Jesus clash

There's no clash at all between God and science. Couldn't be. It's his creation, after all.

as for the majority, majority only counts when we're voting for the next president, God is a majority unto himself. Maybe if you put those books aside and read a story about a man and God and insurmountable odds, its a story about a man named Gideon, its found in the book of Judges chapters 6-7. This will give you an idea about the size of the enemy Gideon faced..

Nevertheless, God said that His people would hold to the faith. So that matters, if you take His word for it.

the morning and the evening being logical absurdities

It's logically absurd to talk about mornings and evenings as literal things, without a Sun to have them. Instead of inventing non-scriptural doctrines to change it to a literal history, why not just accept it the way He said it?

as you'll see in that story God isn't logical the way we understand the meaning..

God is truth.
Psalm 33:4For the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth.

So no, absurdity is not God's way.

 

[turnorburn]

Do you mean non scriptural doctrines as in evolution?

tob

 

[Vaccine]

turnorburn said

Where is Jesus in all of this?

tob

I think I understand what you mean.
Much of science has nothing to say about Christianity, but where there is overlap, and there is, there shouldn't be any conflict. I think the conflict arises from materialistic approach to science. What does science say about the resurrection? Or miracles of Jesus? True scientific inquiry has nothing to say about these events, as they re not testable or repeatable.
When materialistic presuppositions are allowed to dictate to science what causes can and cannot be allowed, then there's a conflict. A materialistic approach to science will only look for natural causes. I don't know of any natural explanations for Jesus healing lepers, other than he gave them some antibiotics and said come see me in a few days. I'm certain there's no natural explanation for the resurrection.
If ALL causes are allowed to be considered, there's no conflict. I was taught early on science was influenced by Christianity as an effort to understand the creator better. I believe it was unduly influenced by people like David Hume, but not so much anymore.

 

[turnorburn]

Its a couple of things Vaccine, as Christians we believe God when he says: Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear Hebrews 11:3. What does science say "the evolutionary scientist" that i believe is where the two clash. The other being "this just came to my attention" the statement "never been the majority view of Christians drove me to look it up, who are these majority Christians and then i found this statement..

[Catholicism and Orthodoxy] have stated support of evolution and denounced creationism. Pope Benedict recently described evolution as an enriching reality and described creationist contest against it as absurd. Both of the popes before him advised Christians around the world to consider evolution to be more than a hypothesis and not to fear and not t fear acceptance of that is being any challenge to their faith in Christ"

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16414/does-the-catholic-church-accept-evolution

You see if mother church makes a statement the member must follow suit or risk, well i won't go there lets just say I'm bowing out of this thread..

tob

 

[Vaccine]

I guess I have a lot to learn about Catholics. I hope we would have a common cause and find common ground.

I agree with you about the clash, though, many scientists want to tell us only naturalistic explanations are allowed. I'm not buying it.

 

[Barbarian]

Do you mean non scriptural doctrines as in evolution?

No; like YE. Evolution is a natural phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the scientific theory that explains it.

[Catholicism and Orthodoxy] have stated support of evolution and denounced creationism.

No. The Church has no doctrine requiring one to accept evolution, or believe in creationism. Catholics and (Orthodox Christians I think) can believe either, or some combination of both.

Pope Benedict recently described evolution as an enriching reality and described creationist contest against it as absurd.

His personal opinion, based on Scripture, but he did not say it ex cathedra, and therefore Catholics can disagree about the issue.

Both of the popes before him advised Christians around the world to consider evolution to be more than a hypothesis and not to fear and not t fear acceptance of that is being any challenge to their faith in Christ"

That is correct, but of course, it's not part of the Magisterium, and remains an open question as far as the Church is concerned. Which is how it should be. The Church should not be in the business of determining scientific theories; its only concern is claims that exceed science's reach and address supernatural things. Which scientists don't want to see, either.

 

[Barbarian]

Much of science has nothing to say about Christianity, but where there is overlap, and there is, there shouldn't be any conflict. I think the conflict arises from materialistic approach to science. What does science say about the resurrection? Or miracles of Jesus? True scientific inquiry has nothing to say about these events, as they re not testable or repeatable.

That's a remarkably solid statement. I wish all Christians understood this. Science is methodologically naturalistic, but cannot be ontologically naturalistic, because science is unable to answer such questions.

 

[Sparkey]

That's a remarkably solid statement. I wish all Christians understood this. Science is methodologically naturalistic, but cannot be ontologically naturalistic, because science is unable to answer such questions.

Barb? Sometimes words themselves confuse me. Do you have a simplified version of what you mean when you say "methodologically naturalistic," please? Here's what I found on WIKI and it doesn't help because it uses too many fancy words with definitions that elude my grasp:

Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and scientific materialism is a strong belief innaturalism, a worldview with a philosophical aspect which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modeling. In contrast,methodological naturalism is an assumption of naturalism as a methodology of science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation.

Metaphysical naturalism holds that all properties related to consciousness and the mind are reducible to, or supervene upon, nature. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects thesupernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.

 

[Barbarian]

Barb? Sometimes words themselves confuse me. Do you have a simplified version of what you mean when you say "methodologically naturalistic," please? Here's what I found on WIKI and it doesn't help because it uses too many fancy words with definitions that elude my grasp:

Suppose you have a plumbing problem and call a plumber. He arrives and begins figuring out what's wrong. He might be a believer, or he might not, but it won't matter to the way he approaches your problem. Plumbing is methodologically naturalistic. That is, the plumber proceeds without considering the supernatural, as if a plumbing problem could be solved entirely by naturalistic means.

This does not mean that the plumber is ontologically naturalistic. He could be a believer, but it wouldn't change the way he approaches the problem. It just means that plumbing can only assume natural causes. It has no way to deal with a supernatural cause, or even to identify one.

Science is like that. It is methodologically naturalistic, but not ontologically naturalistic. It's just limited by its methodology to the natural. It does not deny that supernatural causes might exist, but it has no way of approaching them.

And it must be remembered that although plumbing and science can't consider the supernatural, plumbers and scientists can. Does that help?

Had to look up "supervention." It seems to mean that higher-level organization is a product of lower-level organization. Which seems to be largely true in nature. However, it would not be rationally applied to supernatural things. It's a real phenomenon, but not a universally-present one.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Barb? Sometimes words themselves confuse me. Do you have a simplified version of what you mean when you say "methodologically naturalistic," please?

If it is alright with you Sparrow, I can chime in on this as well. Methodological Naturalism is where a person tests observations with naturalistic methods. Simplified it means that processes are checked to see if they have a natural explanation. MN is used and was introduced to help unify testing methods in science. Originally the sciences didn't have a method in which to test observations to find out data. There was no standard method. The scientific method is MN because it starts with the least amount of assumptions. It only assumes that the object it is testing exists. The point of testing is to see if the data confirms that the assumption is valid.

Start with a hypothesis. Run tests to see if the hypothesis holds. Record Data and check it against the hypothesis. Adjust Hypothesis and rinse repeat.

That format is MN because it doesn't assume that a supernatural force is causing something. That doesn't mean a supernatural force is involved and that the person doing the experiments can't have supernatural beliefs. Its just how the data is recorded.

 

[Sparkey]

Thanks you guys. Yes, that helps. Actually it helps a whole lot because there is a disconnect between people that is seldom so well stated.

 

[Vaccine]

Great explanations Barbarian and Milk-Drops.

I agree science is based on methodological naturalism and isn't ontologically naturalistic. I think where the issues arises is when people think not assuming a supernatural cause, equates to there not being a supernatural cause. Dawkins would argue science assumes no supernatural causes because they don't exhist, therefore a belief in the supernatural is irrational. But as you both point out true scientific inquiry is open-minded, absent any presuppositions. It's absent any way to detect the supernatural too but that doesn't eliminate it. Dawkins argument originates from his materialistic presupposition the supernatural doesn't exhist. That materialistic approach to science is what the center for the renewal of culture is against, not science itself. I'm glad to see we all agree the scientific method not assuming a supernatural cause is not the same as the possibility of there being one.