The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Apparently few if any have read (or are just choosing to ignore) my posting, referring to the OP. If one goes back and reads the OP it becomes apparent that there is a distinction being made between "evolution" and "ID". This is ENTIRELY inconsistent with Scripture and is ENTIRELY dealing with issues of inspiration/inerrancy. To say that one believes in "evolution" apart from intelligent design is to say that God is unnecessary for creation. It is an entirely different matter if one believes in both ID and evolution (which is where this conversation continues to go). The OP sees these as separate and I would once again say, the OP denies what the Word of God declares. There is NO room for believing the Word of God and evolution without intelligent design. (And this is a huge concession coming from someone that doesn't agree with evolution anyways ). I would personally ask the posters here to deal with the OP rather than their opinions about literal six day creation vs. evolution or anything in between (or start a different thread). Kenny has posed a question which no one here seems to be willing to answer (which I find very dis-heartening).

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

Not to hijack the convo here I thought I'll pop in and post my argument why we should trust in evolution over ID.

Firstly, though it sounds like ID, there is nothing wrong to say that evolution was like a set of lined up dominoes, you push the first one and the rest fall over, one follows the other right from the start to the now. The first push could/probably/was done by God.

Secondly ID is not a scientific theory as it has no arguments to back it up or predictions as to what is likely to happen. Evolution does have arguments and predictions, though over time these may have changed and altered slightly the base argument is the same: those best adapted survive, those not die.

Thirdly if I have trouble with my motorbike I don't take it to a priest to fix it; nor if I am ill do I go to a pastor (first); to get a filling I do not go to a bishop; for brain surgery I do not visit the Pope. So why then do we listen to the views of religious men over scientists when dealing with issues of science? A couple of years ago the majority of the noble laureates wrote to the Kansas(?) school board detailing why ID should not be taught as science; we should listen to them as they are men of science just like we should listen to our vicars/priests/pastors in matters of faith.

The Pope was happy with the Big Bang because it was a start point, a moment of creation, he asked Einstein not to look beyond that point. There are questions science has yet to answer and it is in those gaps that God exists: to some those gaps may seem small, but to others they are large. Science and religion should work together as each has much to teach the other. Who is to say that God is not behind all the wonders of current science pushing us forwards and upwards? In that case it is the Tester (Satan) that is forcing people to hold onto ID...

In faith,
Kenny

_________________

I have found this thread dis-heartening too, Antipater.

My understanding of ID one that is taught by those who claim that Darwinism is flawed and evil.
My view of evolution is one that Humans, and all life, evolved from 'slime' error by error.
The last choice, both, is neither one nor the other--a middle ground.

I picked evolution over 'both' because it is closest to what I believe happened. God could've got his hand dirty mixing the slime and nudging things now and again but in general we appeared from error after error, mutation after mutation. This is not to say that I believe God did not ignore us, or our ancestors, but He knew what would happen when He pushed over that first domino. It is all His plan. He made science, He made all the rules, we are living in His playground. As God made the rules He is the rules, He can make or bend the rules if we so ask Him. He is everywhere and nowhere.

I hope that makes sense?

Kenny

_________________

What an interesting use of scripture. We can seriously use Zephaniah 1:2-7 and do exegesis of the text in a discussion about evolution and then deny that the discussion is about anything but theological dogma. Do we ever stop and listen to ourselves as we declare "truth" about the world around us and wonder what none Christians think about our profound conclusions? A literary analysis of Zephaniah 1:2-7 and/or the first two chapters of Genesis is nothing but literary analysis...that's what literary analysis of a document does. Even the way this question is framed into some sort of simplistic philosophical duality shows the very nature and short comings of the use of dogma to arrive at "conclusions" about the rich universe God has called into being. Is ID or evolution true? How in the world can theologians know or even have a good guess if our heads are constantly stuck in a book?

I seem to be missing the boat here! Are we dealing with a christian world view perspective in arriving at a point to discuss ID or evolution, or are we drifting into a philosophical approach to discuss realtiy in the present understanding of the context of the question first posted

_________________
Kola,

Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

Kenney,

It seems to me that in your view you seem to forget that all men (scientists, pastors, doctors, etc.) are fallen in nature and naturally deny who God is. There are scientists, yes real scientists, who pose an argument for ID. Do you propose we listen to only one set of scientists and their theories over another? If so, on what basis do we choose?

If I have trouble with my motorbike I first take a look in the instructional booklet to see if I can correctly troubleshoot it myself. If not, I take it to a mechanic witha solid reputation who has a greatly more detailed instructional book and understanding to use as a guide. Sometimes, even he forgets to check to see if the fuel filter is clogged. However, the "shade-tree" guy went straight to the filter. All this to say, your analogy falls short.

Science and its methods are not infallible. Religion and interpretation of the Bible are not either. But, IMO, God's word itself is infallible in what He intends to communicate to us. IMO God did not intend to detail the "how" of creation. Neither did He intend to explain the age of the earth. He did, however, intend to give us the "why" we are here and the "way" to have access to His blessings. (BTW that would be only through Jesus [John 14:6] according to that infallible word IMO.)



I could see how you would think that but I don't think that it aligns with what is said in Genesis 1-3. I have no trouble with those who want to say the "bang" started with/by God. I however in my view of God and His revelation disagree.

Like others here I think evolution is provable on a micro level but not at the macro.

Scientists once thought it medically healthy to bleed a person to get out the "bad" blood and toxins. Could they perhaps be just as mistaken today? I think it at least possible and will not stake my faith and view of man upon such unproved theorems.

Blessings,
Randy.

I'm sorry if I was unclear. Either life came from chance or it came about as a result of intelligent design. I believe the Bible reveals that God is intelligent, that He created all things, and so I believe in intelligent design.

Without dealing with new earth/old earth, length of the "days" of creation, or anything else, I am still waiting for an explanation of how macro-evolution is compatible with Paul's clear statement that death came into the world through Adam's sin. Either that is true, in which case Darwinism is false, since it claims that death was a natural part of the evolutionary cycle, or it is false. If Paul's statement is false, then why should I trust anything else that he says?

So, Rene, yes, my theological beliefs are relevant. I cannot compartmentalize my thinking and believe two things are true when they are in exact opposition to one another. "To be honest even a poorly educated child in a public school" should be able to grasp this.

Kenny, my Doc believes in ID, not in evolution, and he knows his medical stuff. Don't know about my mechanic and sometimes I wonder about the Pope.

Got to get to work now. Regards.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

Just a note that medical bleeding is still practiced, just with more knowledge and discernment than in years past. But the biggest difference is the development of other options. If diurectics hadn't been developed, medical bleeding of patients suffering from congestive heart failure would likely still be routine.

I know several people with a genetic disorder where they accumulate too much iron. it can cause fatigue, pain, arthritis and death. The treatment is monitoring their iron levels and drawing blood if necessary to reduce their iron levels.

_________________
Marv
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NeXt Bible Learning Environment
The Bible NETwork Blogs

BeneSHOP: Help support Bible.org at no additional cost to you when you shop!

This is the kind of stuff that is exactly what I am talking about. How in the world do you know that life came from one or the other? How can you possible rule out other options? Were you there to see it? It is perfectly fine to think, based on ones faith, in one or the other options yet this does not mean one theological propositions on the matter is correct in any matter in regards to issues like biology.




Your theological beliefs are relevant to your views on the matter....which I cannot argue with since they are yours. However, as a theological matter this whole hermeneutical matrix of interpretation that tries to jury rig science as just another literary exercise is profoundly and absolutely wrong. I can hear the critique now...well your wrong that I'm wrong. Well that maybe so but we then enter the bizarre world of post-modern world of relativistic theological discussion. I would argue that on a fundamental human level that each perosn can use their experience to figure out that stories about motorcycle is not the same as a motorcycle.

Well, you've got "A" and you've got "non-A". What options might I have missed?

Oh, I forgot. Richard Dawkins thinks life might have been seeded here by aliens from outside of our galaxy. Were that to be true (some actually consider him a scientist), it does not answer the question, it only moves it from our galaxy to another.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

Wow...what is it about theology that limits us to such simplistic interpretations on complex issues like the development of life. How do we know that there is only A and non-A on this isssue Jimd? Upon what basis in your life, other than your beliefs, do you draw a conclusion about the origin of life that it is one or the other?

Rene, it is not a theological presuppostion that leads me to believe there are only two choices, it is simple logic. Either life was designed (A), i.e., there was an intelligent designer, or life was not designed (non-A), i.e. it came from chance. (If the theistic evolutionists are correct, they still fall into the first option.) If there a is third option then you are correct and I am a simpleton. Hopefully you will be so kind as to enlighten me.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.

Well let me try again Jim before i go into head exploding mode. In your common day-to-day experience is a Chipmunk either a chip or munk....is a doorway either a door or a way....is Bigfoot either a man or an ape? Indeed every component of ur arguement is a proposition starting with the notion that there are only bible believers and evolutionists. The problem is that language seems to create these false dualities as if words correspond one-to-one with the reality we experience unfiltered by the human mind. In this case the basic way folks frame the question of the thread sets up a false choice between a or not a much life the examples I started off with in this post. The problem with theology here is theology and those who practice it.

Paul's statement that death entered the world because of sin. I swear I did answer this, but maybe it wasn't in this forum.

Adam had the option for the tree of life. After choosing the fruit of knowledge of good and evil he lost the option for the other. Thus sin entered.

Adam would have died, had he not eaten the fruit of tree of life. We have no reason to believe otherwise. IF NOT, why would there even BE a tree of life?

So adam was booted to keep him from eternal life. Which isn't the same as being booted because he sinned. Albeit the sin he committed was the reason he couldn't be left near the tree of life.

bd

So, your position is that life was both designed and not designed because it is only a false duality that would cause us to have to choose only one or the other.

Rene, I certainly don't want your head to explode. But, when I cross the street, I look both ways, because it's either me, or the bus. It can't be both.

With that, I'll be done. I think we have both had our say.

Regards.

_________________
All Scripture quotations are New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise indicated.