Skip to comments.The total bankruptcy of so-called theistic evolution
Posted on 12/21/2018 10:41:20 AM PST by spirited irish
So then how does the theistic evolutionist marry evolutionary processes and theism? As I have already mentioned, there are three basic ways
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
There some very unexplainable things in science. As science matures, it becomes more and more abstract. Weird and nonsensical as a matter of fact. It tells us that our understanding of of reality is very limited, simple and naive.
It is a leap of Faith to ascribe this to a Creator. But it also take leap of Faith to claim that a deity doesn’t exist.
A long time ago, back in 2005, I rolled into this forum with a vanity post about intelligent design, making the point (in part) that ID is not the foil of evolutionary theory but of philosophical Naturalism.
Philosophical Naturalism, or the belief that all that we see must be explained only in terms of processes arising from within the system, is not scientific proposition as it is not testable. Rather it is a belief asserted about the first causes of things and it is further one that has developed very dogmatic consensus.
One of the effects of the need to bring about more belief in philosophical Naturalism is found in how the form of “evolution” that is frequently taught in public education is often hopelessly out of date with respect to the actual state of theory ... causing me to joke back in the day that it seems as if bad high school textbooks should be cheaper that good if they want to justify teaching out of date ideas as if biological laws of nature. What this is all about, rather, is that there is a need to teach ways of thinking about life that need no God, that needs no creator. This serves a socially transformative purpose rather than a “scientific” one which is precisely why bad textbooks don’t matter, they ultimately aren’t teaching evolutionary science but are teaching believing in evolution as a doctrine.
Intelligent design is NOT creationism, at least not in any Christian sense. It accepts all the notions bandied about by the evolutionists but is based on observations, often arising from the science of cosmology, that the universe is too perfectly balanced to not be inexplicable, as well as from issues arising from biological chemistry. ID as a philosophical matter was first proposed to liberate the science from the demands of the strict philosophical Naturalism.
ID was picked up by others who had what I’d term “other reasons to believe” than anything arising from science. No different than the secularist have latched onto evolution (and now man made climate change) as a way to advance their other dogs in the hunt.
Thanks for the post!!
You can explore the universe of mathematics with absolute certainty that its principles are rock solid.
How would that be possible if life just randomly evolved?
The precision of mathematics is an abstract world unto itself that someone designed down to the tiniest detail.
To imagine that it just evolved out of nothingness is beyond absurd.
As a final note, I think all research mathematicians would agree that when a new discovery is made, the mathematicians know full well that the concept was just waiting to be discovered. A mathematical discovery is akin to finding a dinosaur bone in Utah. Someone or something is responsible for that mathematical concept's existence.
It is not created by the mathematician...it is merely lying in wait for the mathematician to stumble upon it. Just like an archeological relic or an ancient bone.
The article is “meh”. I can’t tell is the author is an atheist, young-earth creationist of what. The article has some value in that it gets us to think about this issue more carefully. I read about halfway through the article. I have a few comments, but I don;t have time to post a full critique of it.
1)Just because some “theistic evolutionists” dont make room in their Darwin for theism, it does NOT mean that all don’t.
2) The author says, The point is that theistic evolution has moved the discussion such that anything science finds out about the natural world can be interpreted as Gods plan (p. 160). To this I say, “so what?” For every orthodox monotheistic faith, God is sovereign. There are natural laws that God has established to make the universe orderly and predictable for the benefit of all species. This in no way violates the principle that God can choose to direct the universe from time to time towards goals that fulfill God’s plan. There’s just nothing necessarily contradictory; claiming there is is just begging the question.
3) The article writer also says this: “ That is, theistic evolutionists embrace naturalistic evolution as fact, while simultaneously denying the naturalistic implications of naturalistic evolution.” Again, there is nothing inherently contradictory in holding the view that God creates material substance(s) and the laws that govern their behavior, while also having the capability of injecting supernatural causation into the stream of history. The author just keeps begging that which he seems to want to prove.
4) He quotes Rossiter as saying : “ They are not just claiming that the biblical authors of antiquity were ignorant of science (as they most certainly were), but that they were wrong about reality (p. 63).” This may be the only thing I sort of agree with...namely that hyperliteralism is wrong. But evolutionary theists can consistently hold that God created the universe and guided it via physical laws AND supernatural intervention (miracles). The “days” of Genesis can easily be interpreted as ages/epochs or as a general principle of less advanced life preceeding more advanced life...culminating in God’s ultimate creation, Homo Sapiens.
5) Rossiter says this: “It is untrue that science has nothing to say about miracles. If a man is spontaneously (miraculously) healed of a deadly virus while lying on his deathbed, doctors (and scientists) can document it. He had the virus, they knew his condition, and now he doesnt. Of course we may not know why or how, but we can document and study it (p. 79). Sorry, but he’s laughably wrong here. Science cannot say anything scientific about events who’s causes are not natural. Why? because the event would never follow if natural causes were the only thing in existence. There would be absolutely no predictability involved; science is all about predictions and demonstrations. Many scientists do not like the notion of miracles because it violates the whole, “this MUST follow from this” or “this cannot exist without THIS kind of cause”, but again....so what?
I meant to say "I think mathematics would NOT be impossible were it not for a creator.
Can’t remember who said it originally but it’s been said that we are far more ignorant about reality now compared to the reality of those who lived 500 years ago simply because we are now confronted with newly-discovered reality at a pace that far exceeds our understanding of how that newly-discovered reality actually works.
In other words, compared with those who lived 500 years ago, we are far more aware that there is much more that we don’t know about reality.
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” Rev: 3:16 KJV
Agreed. But keep in mind that mathematics helps us as humans understand the underlying structure.
But remember that it is not mathematics but the underlying structure that we are trying to understand.
To use a mathematical term — math allows us, we humans, to transform to the “real world.” Some of those translations are pretty strange.
Funny thing about randomness — if a system is truly random with all variable equal, it would never for a structure. Many atheists believe in randomness as a way to explain nature.
No problem. I knew what you were saying.
Math allows our feeble minds to try understand a very complicated nature. But nature, God’s Creation, is much more complicated than we will ever understand.
Yup. Classical vs Modern Physics. And just when we think that we have it pegged and we think that we are really really smart and a little arrogant, a new door opens up and new wonderful things are discovered.
My theory is that religion and science will merge. And yes, the deity wants us to be successful and so he/she set out a set of rules for us to follow that will help us survive. Unfortunately, we are not good at following rules.
All in my opinion of course.
The point is that there is a lot more to this world, than we can all see, that is going on. Scientists and atheists included.
The very mathematics that works consistently on a Earth the same way it does on Mars and beyond
= = =
1+1 does not = 3 on Mars?
Enjoyed/agree with your post!
I was having a similar conversation years ago with a hard core atheist in which I said I didn't think mathematics would be impossible were it not for a creator. And I gave him a similar argument.
He said "mathematics in no way proves the existence of God."
Frustratedly, I said, "imagine you were a spaceman and were the first visitor from Earth to arrive on a barren planet. But after a little bit of exploring, you came upon an elaborate and very precise conglomeration of machines that looked like a factory.
What conclusion would you draw about your discovery?
He said, "well, it's obvious it's not natural so I would conclude that someone alien to me created it.
Now reconsider mathematics.
Imagine you discovered that the entire known universe and probably all parts of the universe yet discovered from the biggest thing you can see or even envision to the smallest thing possible including everything down to the atomic level all were in fact an abstraction of a machine...and could even be tested and found to behave according to precise rules and principles?
That is what mathematics is, wouldn't you agree?
So, what kind of being would you say designed all that and put it in place is?
He said, "well, it might look like a god to me, but that doesn't mean it is God."
I said to him, "well, we have established that something god-like designed and created everything we know of or can imagine. The only question now is, what is He?"
He said, "I don't know...but I am feeling very confused."
Simple — God created his creatures that are not merely clay puppets, but complex mechanisms which can repair themselves and even adapt genetically to the complex changing world he also created.
Scientists keep exploring this creation and barely have scratched its extent.
Intelligent Design is God of the Gaps writ large.
Materialist Evolution doesn't explain why there is a universe (or multiverse) in the first place.
Theistic Evolution has to deal with the problem of evil writ large, i.e. why would a loving Creator create and destroy whole species in painful ways over millions of years just so mankind could be the position it was in when Christ arrived.
There is no simple solution. Banging on one theory without admitting the problems with the other theories is misleading at best, and dishonest at worst.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.