Replies

Calculus does not try to get rid of the moral law-giver. It does not presuppose a world without a creator.

Nor does evolution. All evolution states is that the origins of the living organisms we see can be explained by natural processes; just as calculus states that dynamical systems can be explained by a particular kind of mathematical equations. By showing how x changes with time, does calculus try to get rid of God, in saying that x does not change simply according to His will, but according to a set of mathematical laws? By doing medical research, do we try to get rid of God in curing the sick?

Nor does evolution. All evolution states is that the origins of the living organisms we see can be explained by natural processes;
Which is contrary to how Scripture said it happened. There is NO basis for moral law in evolution other than human preference. If you can make a case that there is a basis for such, do so. However, your friends tried to use nature as the basis which in and of itself can't explain why one man's moral law in America is different from another's in Saudi Arabia which is different from another's in the jungles of Indonesia. God's law is seen in creation to a certain extent, but the fact that man has so wide a range of opinions on what is moral and what isn't is proof that there is no self-evident basis for moral law outside of a Creator who has given His moral law. Again, if you can make the case on how evolution has a basis for moral law, by all means. Saying it is neutral doesn't work, because in standing against Scripture and the supernatural it has forfeited such neutrality.

just as calculus states that dynamical systems can be explained by a particular kind of mathematical equations. By showing how x changes with time, does calculus try to get rid of God, in saying that x does not change simply according to His will, but according to a set of mathematical laws? By doing medical research, do we try to get rid of God in curing the sick? You are comparing apples with oranges. Scripture makes distinct truth claims for itself. In postulating that these things did not occur the way Scripture says they occurred, Evolution is setting itself up over Scripture. Calculus, by itself, is pretty neutral. Medical research is nowhere prohibited in the Bible. It's apples and oranges. Evolution deals with origins, specifically. It specifically sets itself against the biblical account. Darwin knew he was doing this as did every "churchman" who joined him in the apostasy (study Crawford Toy for example) of the late 1800s. It sets itself up as anti-biblical. If you don't agree with this, just look at how these threads go "see, science say that lice came about 70,000 years ago (or whatever, I can't see the thread right now). The Bible can't be right!" It's not neutral, and any claimed neutrality is feigned.