Evolution Opposed to the Creator

[Jack777]

Evolution concludes that the Creator is less than He is. The Bible teaches that God is continually active in our lives. He is continually active in His Creation.

Notice the basis for the Nicene Creed.



THE NICENE CREED


THE CREED AS SET FORTH AT NICOEA, A.D. 325

WE believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God; Light of light; very God of very God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth: Who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate, and was made man: He suffered, and rose again the third day: And ascended into heaven: And shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost, etc.

THE RATIFICATION

And those who say There was a time when He was not, or that Before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made out of nothing; or who say that The Son of God is of any other substance, or that He is changeable or unstable, - these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.


ADDENDA


AS AUTHORIZED AT CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 381

(A) OF HEAVEN AND EARTH.

(B) BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER BEFORE ALL WORLDS.

(C) BY THE HOLY GHOST OF THE VIRGIN MARY.

(D) WAS CRUCIFIED ALSO FOR US, UNDER PONTIUS PILATE,

(E) AND WAS BURIED.

(F) SITTETH ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER,

(G) WHOSE KINGDOM SHALL HAVE NO END.

(H) THE LORD, THE GIVER OF LIFE,

Who proceedeth from the Father;

Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;

Who spake by the prophets:

In one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

And the life of the world to come. Amen.

This Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed was solemnly ratified by the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) with the decree that “No one shall be permitted to introduce, write, or compose any other faith, besides that which was defined by the holy Fathers assembled in the city of Nice, with the presence of the Holy Ghost.”

Council of Nicea, The Nicene Creed Ratification, and Addenda, Book 8, Master Christian Library Edition, Albany, OR: AGES Software Version 2.0, Copyright 1996, 1997 Ages Software, 1997.

[rogero]

Evolution concludes that the Creator is less than He is. The Bible teaches that God is continually active in our lives. He is continually active in His Creation.

Notice the basis for the Nicene Creed.



THE NICENE CREED


THE CREED AS SET FORTH AT NICOEA, A.D. 325

WE believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God; Light of light; very God of very God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth: Who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate, and was made man: He suffered, and rose again the third day: And ascended into heaven: And shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost, etc.

THE RATIFICATION

And those who say There was a time when He was not, or that Before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made out of nothing; or who say that The Son of God is of any other substance, or that He is changeable or unstable, - these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.


ADDENDA


AS AUTHORIZED AT CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 381

(A) OF HEAVEN AND EARTH.

(B) BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER BEFORE ALL WORLDS.

(C) BY THE HOLY GHOST OF THE VIRGIN MARY.

(D) WAS CRUCIFIED ALSO FOR US, UNDER PONTIUS PILATE,

(E) AND WAS BURIED.

(F) SITTETH ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER,

(G) WHOSE KINGDOM SHALL HAVE NO END.

(H) THE LORD, THE GIVER OF LIFE,

Who proceedeth from the Father;

Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;

Who spake by the prophets:

In one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

And the life of the world to come. Amen.

This Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed was solemnly ratified by the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) with the decree that “No one shall be permitted to introduce, write, or compose any other faith, besides that which was defined by the holy Fathers assembled in the city of Nice, with the presence of the Holy Ghost.”

Council of Nicea, The Nicene Creed Ratification, and Addenda, Book 8, Master Christian Library Edition, Albany, OR: AGES Software Version 2.0, Copyright 1996, 1997 Ages Software, 1997. (Theistic) evolution holds that God is continually active in his creation as well. Why do you insist on acting like an ignoramus?

I suggest you try to answer questions in your ridiculous "Marytrs" thread before you spam this forum with more your irrelevant nonsense. Can you ever back up anything you say?

R

[George Murphy]

Evolution concludes that the Creator is less than He is. The Bible teaches that God is continually active in our lives. He is continually active in His Creation.

Notice the basis for the Nicene Creed.









THE NICENE CREED




















THE CREED AS SET FORTH AT NICOEA, A.D. 325













WE believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God; Light of light; very God of very God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth: Who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate, and was made man: He suffered, and rose again the third day: And ascended into heaven: And shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost, etc.







THE RATIFICATION













And those who say There was a time when He was not, or that Before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made out of nothing; or who say that The Son of God is of any other substance, or that He is changeable or unstable, - these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.








ADDENDA




















AS AUTHORIZED AT CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 381













(A) OF HEAVEN AND EARTH.

(B) BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER BEFORE ALL WORLDS.

(C) BY THE HOLY GHOST OF THE VIRGIN MARY.

(D) WAS CRUCIFIED ALSO FOR US, UNDER PONTIUS PILATE,

(E) AND WAS BURIED.

(F) SITTETH ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER,

(G) WHOSE KINGDOM SHALL HAVE NO END.

(H) THE LORD, THE GIVER OF LIFE,

Who proceedeth from the Father;

Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified;

Who spake by the prophets:

In one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

And the life of the world to come. Amen.

This Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed was solemnly ratified by the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) with the decree that “No one shall be permitted to introduce, write, or compose any other faith, besides that which was defined by the holy Fathers assembled in the city of Nice, with the presence of the Holy Ghost.”

Council of Nicea, The Nicene Creed Ratification, and Addenda, Book 8, Master Christian Library Edition, Albany, OR: AGES Software Version 2.0, Copyright 1996, 1997 Ages Software, 1997.Jack, you can stop wasting computer memory by posting big chunks of church history. I know the Nicene Creed. I've been saying it in church since I was a child. I say it every Sunday at the Eucharist. I believe it. I don't cross my fingers when I say it. I'll bet I know its know its historical background and interpretation better than you do. And there is no contradiction between the creed and evolution as a scientific theory. Evolution is a way of understanding part of God's CREATIVE work.

Shalom,
George

[AllDay]

.

[shunyadragon]

.Interesting reply, A period.

[AllDay]

Evolution concludes that the Creator is less than He is. The Bible teaches that God is continually active in our lives. He is continually active in His Creation.Originally I commented on this quote, and then erased my post until I had time to make a more explanatory post.

When I look at this quote and compare the two "creation" views, it it obvious to me which one is more congruent. On one hand we have 6, 24-hour days of creation, then rest. On the other (theistic evolution) we have continuous time of creation, that continues today. Which of those seems more in line with "God being continually active in His creation"?

We believe that God was active in the past, and that God is active today, and that God will be active tomorrow in virtually every aspect ... except in "creation of living things". It makes very little logical sense. If anything, THAT thinking limits the power of God (IMO).

When i read Jack's quote, I thought of my response immediately. I pondered about whether to post it, thinking (naively) that people had not considered my explanantion or thought of it themselves previously. Coincidently, as I sat down to finish reading Finding Darwin's God, I read the very chapters that described what my thoughts were. Of course [after finishing the book], I realized that many people likely had similar thoughts as the one I had. The book wonderfully explores this topic [and others] much better than I could ever do in a thread like this.

Jack, you seem like a great candidate to read Finding Darwin's God. You seem to have the same fear of evolution that Ham, Morris, etc do. If evolution is accepted, there is nothing for God to do ... if there is a God at all ... or the need for a God at all[or so the thinking goes]. It's bullsnot. If I were you, I would try to seperate emotion from the issue. You seem to look at evolution the way some folks look at spiders, snakes, and great white sharks. I once shared the same view as you.

-----------------------------
Why do people keep bringing up Hitler as a means of making a logical argument? How long until someone mentions that Hitlers favorite color was light blue, so no TRUE Christian would ever wear light blue clothing or accesories? We can't find better rationale than refer to Hitler?

[Jack777]

Well, I do not agree with Ham et alia. I also am not a YEC.

Although there are many who see evolution as a way of describing God's creative work, not all do.

I am not wasting computer space, if you quote my whole post, you are, if computer space is a problem.

As far as the Nicene Creed you may know it but do you understand what it means? Or is it you do not know history and how Evolution fits in with it.

Referring to Hitler is important and it is essentially a great part of why I do not wholly accept the Theory of Evolution. Read some books.

[WILLOWTREE]

(Theistic) evolution holds that God is continually active in his creation as well. Why do you insist on acting like an ignoramus?

I suggest you try to answer questions in your ridiculous "Marytrs" thread before you spam this forum with more your irrelevant nonsense. Can you ever back up anything you say?

RThere are no arguments above just insults.

IOW, unless you make a senseless theory with very little evidence your god you are as Rogero says.

"theistic evolution" is a gross contradiction in terms.

Let me interpret what TE's are saying:

They are attempting to validate a scientific theory that was invented to disprove the Bible from being seen reliable.

They are attempting to give the said theory Biblical support because of the perceived weight of credibility Scripture has in the minds of millions of persons.

This attempt is only embarked upon because the scientific theory is faltering so its supporters run to the Bible for help (how ironic !).

"theism" means the God of the Bible is the Creator of the universe and is knowable.

"evolution" in essence means the God of the Bible does not exist and therefore cannot be the Creator.

Therefore, TEists are loyal to evolution and seek to validate the theory with God. This can only be done by corrupting what the Bible says, which in turn makes TEists no different from most militant atheists.

WT

[rogero]

There are no arguments above just insults.

IOW, unless you make a senseless theory with very little evidence your god you are as Rogero says.

"theistic evolution" is a gross contradiction in terms.

Let me interpret what TE's are saying:

They are attempting to validate a scientific theory that was invented to disprove the Bible from being seen reliable.

They are attempting to give the said theory Biblical support because of the perceived weight of credibility Scripture has in the minds of millions of persons.

This attempt is only embarked upon because the scientific theory is faltering so its supporters run to the Bible for help (how ironic !).

"theism" means the God of the Bible is the Creator of the universe and is knowable.

"evolution" in essence means the God of the Bible does not exist and therefore cannot be the Creator.

Therefore, TEists are loyal to evolution and seek to validate the theory with God. This can only be done by corrupting what the Bible says, which in turn makes TEists no different from most militant atheists.

WT
There are no arguments in your spew either.

I want a formal apology, here and now, for saying that TEists are no different than militant atheists. Are you that arrogant that you believe you have the infallable interpretation of scripture? Shame on you!!!!

Did you understand the OP? If so, please explain it to me.

It's obvious that you can't comprehend the difference between the WHO and WHY vis-a-vis the HOW of Creation.

You don't have a good track record, as is evidenced by the your MYTH OF HUMAN EVOLUTION thread. Do you want to start another firestorm of unsubstantiated nonsense here?

BTW, if you insist on pushing the issue, perhaps you'd like to discuss some of the issues you tried on EVC forum? Does the concept of the LLM through the GP having any meaning for you?

R

[bhukkadakota]

Whats a militant athiest? I know i shouldnt be posting in this thread because im not a religious bloke, but i seriously dont know what that means.

[rogero]

Whats a militant atheist? I know i shouldnt be posting in this thread because im not a religious bloke, but i seriously dont know what that means. Well, I guess according to WILLOWTREE a militant atheist is the same as a theistic evolutionist. :lol:

But we'd better wait for a definitive response from him...

The fact that he'd equate TE with atheism, militant or not, shows WILLOWTREE's lack of perception.

Just between you and me, I think WILLOWTREE has some "issues." :blush:

[Constantine]

Jack777: You should stop telling Theistic Evolutionists what we believe. Perhaps if you think evolution is such a threat why don't you try to learn more about it, and evolution viewed through theism (not the other way around) known as theistic evolution.

After all, you should know the enemy before you try to engage him. Read about what TE's believe and then decide whether it is the great threat you currently believe it to be.

I used to be quite a bit like you. I'm a former YEC. I stopped off at OEC and ID on my way to theistic evolution so I've got a well rounded sense of how each view point works. Evolution used to scare me, but once the I began to learn more about evolution the more I realised there is nothing to fear from it. It actually answers some tough theological problems that OEC and ID create.


Referring to Hitler is important and it is essentially a great part of why I do not wholly accept the Theory of Evolution. Read some books.

You should listen to yourself here. How many books written by theistic evolutionists have you read? My personal collection of books include:

Refuting Evolution, Starlight and Time; Bones of Contention. All YEC books, I own one OEC book titled Show Me God by Fred Heeren (which I recomend to YEC's who oppose the Big Bang) and one Theistic Evolution book; Finding Darwin's God. I strongly reconmend the last one to you. It is written by a lifelong Christian and Ph.D biologist Kenneth Miller.

Before you continue on your anti-TE campaign you should try to learn what we TE's actually stand for and believe and more importantly why.

Rogero- I know how fustrating it is dealing with stubborn people like WILLOW and Jack. But getting insulting is not the way to help the situation. In the begining of my "conversion" to Theistic Evolution I was attracted to it in large part because of how humble the TE writers I was reading were. If you have read Carl Drew's website you will understand what I am talking about. Seeing true Christian Humility in the people who were supposed to be tearing the Bible to shreds helped open my eyes and I hope that we can do the same for so many other people that really are having deep trouble with their faith.

[George Murphy]

I own one OEC book titled Show Me God by Fred Heeren (which I recomend to YEC's who oppose the Big Bang) and one Theistic Evolution book; Finding Darwin's God. I strongly reconmend the last one to you. It is written by a lifelong Christian and Ph.D biologist Kenneth Miller.Ken Miller's book is good. But for a general survey of views about origins I strongly recommend Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, Evolution from Creation to New Creation (Abingdon, 2003). Peters is a Lutheran theologian who has had a long involvement with science-theology dialogue and Hewlett is a Roman Catholic molecular biologist. They are clear in their preference for TE but present, I think, very fair & helpful treatments of other views ranging from atheistic ones to YEC.

Shalom,
George

[rogero]

...

Rogero- I know how fustrating it is dealing with stubborn people like WILLOW and Jack. But getting insulting is not the way to help the situation. In the begining of my "conversion" to Theistic Evolution I was attracted to it in large part because of how humble the TE writers I was reading were. If you have read Carl Drew's website you will understand what I am talking about. Seeing true Christian Humility in the people who were supposed to be tearing the Bible to shreds helped open my eyes and I hope that we can do the same for so many other people that really are having deep trouble with their faith.


I appreciate your comments and concern. The people that you've mentioned, especially WILLOWTREE, who does nothing but insult, are very tempting targets, but I will try to refrain from personal insults -- but sometimes sarcasm can be effective?

R

[WILLOWTREE]

I want a formal apology, here and now, for saying that TEists are no different than militant atheists.

TEists must change the meaning of Genesis in order to accomodate their belief that human/macro-evolution is true.

Militant atheists have always corrupted the Bible by trying to change what it says.

Therefore, TEists and militant atheism have this commonality/perversion.

Why are you so upset ?

At least you are honest and admit it. Militant atheism goes to extremes by attempting to hide their worldview.

For example, the so called Jesus Seminar is comprised of atheists with some posing as christians for the sole purpose of staking out credibility to their satanic handling of the Bible.

TWEB member Celsus/Joel Ng is an atheist Admin from an atheist debate board. He does not allow ANY opponent to out the worldview of any debater who is anti Bible. If a person does he will erase their words and ban them.

Celsus enjoys here what he does not allow at his Talibanic debate board.

WT

[rogero]

[/b]

TEists must change the meaning of Genesis in order to accomodate their belief that human/macro-evolution is true.


Sez you. Personally, I don't think that Genesis 1-11 is particularly clearly at all, certainly not the "simple obvious even to a child" implication of Fundamentalist creationists.

TEs accept ancient cosmos and evolution because that's where the evidence in nature leads, and we believe that God doesn't lie to us in nature.





Militant atheists have always corrupted the Bible by trying to change what it says.

Therefore, TEists and militant atheism have this commonality/perversion.


Well, isn't that special? TEs are interesting in learning what the Bible realy means, so as to have no contradiction with the truth God allows us to observe in nature. I'm not sure what the "militant atheist" agenda is about the Bible, in fact, have you defined for us exactly what you mean by "militant atheist?"




Why are you so upset ?


Hmmm..., take a wild guess. Could it have something to do with your equation of TE with atheism?




At least you are honest and admit it. Militant atheism goes to extremes by attempting to hide their worldview.


I admit what now? :huh:




For example, the so called Jesus Seminar is comprised of atheists with some posing as christians for the sole purpose of staking out credibility to their satanic handling of the Bible.


I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you insinuating that lovable ol' me might be an atheist posing as a Christian? If that's what you mean, then you really need to apologize and learn to be a bit more circumspect in the future.




TWEB member Celsus/Joel Ng is an atheist Admin from an atheist debate board. He does not allow ANY opponent to out the worldview of any debater who is anti Bible. If a person does he will erase their words and ban them.

Celsus enjoys here what he does not allow at his Talibanic debate board.

WT
Geez, thanks for the gossip. Speaking of gossip, I read your Longest Land Meridian through the Great Pyramid thread on EVCforums a few days ago, and if I were you, I wouldn't be pointing out others' flaws on other boards. Maybe you need to restart that Great Pyramid discussion again here in the more friendly confines of TWeb?

Eventually, you will need to back up your rhetoric with facts.

R

[WILLOWTREE]

TEs accept ancient cosmos and evolution because that's where the evidence in nature leads, and we believe that God doesn't lie to us in nature.Then the premium evidence of His word is false.

You are interpreting Scripture via the atheist explanation for the origin of life.

Does God lie ?

CAN God lie ?

Answer: Whatever God does is righteous BECAUSE no one can put Him in His place.

Rogero: and we believe that God doesn't lie to us in nature.

1Kings 22

20And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.



21And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.


22And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

23Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Willowtree: Why would God admit to "lying" ?

Remember, whatever God does is righteous.

Answer: The text above, in essence, says God will make you believe something that is not true, and in this case, via a "lying spirit" sent by Him.

Why ?

Ahab was an idol worshipper and God had had enough and announced His method to kill Ahab.

Romans says the very same thing a little differently.

Darwinists refuse to credit God as Creator. The Romans text says He will darken their foolish heart as a penalty and make them believe something that is not true (human evolution).

Nature reflects the Creator and His intelligent design. Inability to see it means you are suffering the wrath of God/insight removal.

Your belief that what YOU see in nature justifies the changing of the clear meaning of Genesis only supports that you are deceived just like Ahab.

Romans 1

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:



21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Rogero: I read your Longest Land Meridian through the Great Pyramid thread on EVCforums a few days ago

Not my topic.

The LLM was an opponents.

WT

[rogero]

Then the premium evidence of His word is false.

You are interpreting Scripture via the atheist explanation for the origin of life.

Does God lie ?

CAN God lie ?

Answer: Whatever God does is righteous BECAUSE no one can put Him in His place.



Then why does your interpretation of nature make a God liar? You say that Earth and Cosmos are young (admittingly not as young as the YECs say, yet you don't give an age, and I can't read your mind) and biological evolution didn't occur. The physical evidence says otherwise.

Either your interpretation of Genesis is flawed, or you're admitting that God is a liar. Since I don't believe that latter, then the former must be true.

You may want to defend your interpretation of Genesis 1-11 here. The Fundamentalist/literalist interpretation is not clear to me, in spite of their apologists claiming it's "plain, simple, and obvious even to a child." On the other hand, even though we clearly do NOT know everything about nature, it is clear that Earth and Cosmos are of immense age and that there has been change in the biosphere over time.






Rogero: and we believe that God doesn't lie to us in nature.


Yes, I don't believe He does.





1Kings 22

20And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.



21And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.


22And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

23Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.


Thanks for the KJV1611 Bible reading. Is there some reason you prefer that translation?





Willowtree: Why would God admit to "lying" ?

Remember, whatever God does is righteous.

Answer: The text above, in essence, says God will make you believe something that is not true, and in this case, via a "lying spirit" sent by Him.

Why ?

Ahab was an idol worshipper and God had had enough and announced His method to kill Ahab.

Romans says the very same thing a little differently.

Darwinists refuse to credit God as Creator. The Romans text says He will darken their foolish heart as a penalty and make them believe something that is not true (human evolution).

Nature reflects the Creator and His intelligent design. Inability to see it means you are suffering the wrath of God/insight removal.

Your belief that what YOU see in nature justifies the changing of the clear meaning of Genesis only supports that you are deceived just like Ahab.

You really have some spiritual problems if you believe these texts apply to TEs, WILLOWTREE. It's so frustrating talking with Fundies, since they're always "right" and will twist and distort and spew Scripture to support their hateful and illogical spew.





Romans 1

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:



21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


So, you think this applies to TEs rather than Fundamentalist Genesis literalists who ignore the record of Creation in nature? Pitiful!




Rogero: I read your Longest Land Meridian through the Great Pyramid thread on EVCforums a few days ago

Not my topic.

The LLM was an opponents.

WT You didn't start the thread, but you were the major troll in it, making assertions that you couldn't back up, then insulting and equivocating when the point was pressed. And this thread dealt with a topic that was extremely amenable to scientific investigation and completely falsifiable. The fact that you managed to avoid a valid discussion using slippery and non sequitor rhetoric speaks volumes of your reasoning ablilities and honesty in discussion.

The folks here can check out the thread for themselves:

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=28&t=10&m=1

R

[Jack777]

I appreciate everyone's views. I welcome the insults and the fact that people feel safe enough to vent. That says a lot for the Tweb and its owners. I also truly welcome comments that show me that people are trying to share understanding. Willowtree, Jorge, and kofu2 have been especially kind in posts.

I think Willowtree sees what I am saying. Reading books about what people think about what people think is interesting and I appreciate the offers. I will think about it. Reading what evolution is and what it implies as well as says explicitly is something different. Listening to people express what they think it is and what TE is right now is valuable. I am not questioning anyone's Christianity. I do not have a sense that is what I have even intimated.

The heterodoxy that Willowtree mentioned is spot on. The theory of evolution is old really. Willowtree's comments should be taken to heart. In any event TE is at least 2500 years old. New name old stuff. It is called naturalism, pantheism, and things like that. Even pantheists think from time to time there is only One. The thing is that once there are gods that people think are equal to the One, things go down hill pretty fast.

If people who were TE's worried about finding out about the Bible and the Creator as much as say, the age of the earth that would be heartening. I get the feeling being disrespectful about one of God's attributes or His Word is okay by some but flip out if the "real" age of the earth is not adhered to. As a scientist, they should know what we know now is liable to change and then won't they feel silly when we find the age of the earth is really 4.75672 billion years old instead of 4.75671 billion years old. Knowing God is important and making fun of people who know God and take the Bible literally as I do and saying we are not Christians tells me something. Just some thoughts. The issue of God as Creator and Redeemer is important. God as Savior is found way back in the OT. But, then if you believe the Higher Criticism lies, then you wouldn't care would you?

[rogero]

I appreciate everyone's views. I welcome the insults and the fact that people feel safe enough to vent. That says a lot for the Tweb and its owners. I also truly welcome comments that show me that people are trying to share understanding. Willowtree, Jorge, and kofu2 have been especially kind in posts.


That's quite a trinity of "kind" people! Willowtree and Jorge are two of the most unkind folks here, and Kofh2u kisses up to anyone who will listen to his blasphemous psychobabble. You haven't noticed that?




I think Willowtree sees what I am saying. Reading books about what people think about what people think is interesting and I appreciate the offers. I will think about it. Reading what evolution is and what it implies as well as says explicitly is something different. Listening to people express what they think it is and what TE is right now is valuable. I am not questioning anyone's Christianity. I do not have a sense that is what I have even intimated.




Tell WILLOWTREE to read and re-read bolded sentence. He's not as kind as you.




The heterodoxy that Willowtree mentioned is spot on. The theory of evolution is old really. Willowtree's comments should be taken to heart. In any event TE is at least 2500 years old. New name old stuff. It is called naturalism, pantheism, and things like that. Even pantheists think from time to time there is only One. The thing is that once there are gods that people think are equal to the One, things go down hill pretty fast.


This is a whole mouthful of gobbledy-gook. I suggest you start a new thread to discuss how TE is at least 2500 years old. The equation of naturalism and pantheism is simply ridiculous. One has no god(s) at all, the other has gods in everything.

You really need to apologize to Christian TEs for moronic statements like this. Why can you not yet comprehend that TEs accept the mechanism of evolution as the way God creates and diversifies life, and NOT as a substitute for God? Why don't you criticize Christians who say that the Sun shines because of hydrogen fusion, rather than through God's sustaining power? Certainly you're not being heterodox in this belief about fusion? Well, are you?




If people who were TE's worried about finding out about the Bible and the Creator as much as say, the age of the earth that would be heartening. I get the feeling being disrespectful about one of God's attributes or His Word is okay by some but flip out if the "real" age of the earth is not adhered to. As a scientist, they should know what we know now is liable to change and then won't they feel silly when we find the age of the earth is really 4.75672 billion years old instead of 4.75671 billion years old. Knowing God is important and making fun of people who know God and take the Bible literally as I do and saying we are not Christians tells me something. Just some thoughts. The issue of God as Creator and Redeemer is important. God as Savior is found way back in the OT. But, then if you believe the Higher Criticism lies, then you wouldn't care would you?
Why do think Christian TEs aren't "worried about" finding out about the Bible? This is yet another scandalous Jack ipse dixit. Your commentary on the age of Earth is more rambling and misleading drivel. The fact that you, as a scientist with geology background, didn't seem to care if Earth were 1.5Ga or 4.55Ga speaks volumes of your concern for truth. Why would I be "upset" if the age turned out to be 4.561 or 4.559Ga (BTW, check the numbers again, you still haven't learned.) We're not making up these numbers as a matter of pride. You sure have a knack of looking sidewise at an issue, taking it out of context, then slipping it back in sidewise someplace else.

Christian TEs would be in agreement with the bolded sentence. Why must you continually misrepresent TEs as not believing in God as Creator? Your continual harping on this grows continually more and more tiresome.

To whom is your last sentence on Higher Criticism addressed? TWeb has this neat little QUOTE feature that allows nice formatting of quoted text and the ability to identify easily the one to whom you are responding.

R

[WILLOWTREE]

I appreciate everyone's views. I welcome the insults and the fact that people feel safe enough to vent. That says a lot for the Tweb and its owners. I also truly welcome comments that show me that people are trying to share understanding. Willowtree, Jorge, and kofu2 have been especially kind in posts.

I think Willowtree sees what I am saying. Reading books about what people think about what people think is interesting and I appreciate the offers. I will think about it. Reading what evolution is and what it implies as well as says explicitly is something different. Listening to people express what they think it is and what TE is right now is valuable. I am not questioning anyone's Christianity. I do not have a sense that is what I have even intimated.

The heterodoxy that Willowtree mentioned is spot on. The theory of evolution is old really. Willowtree's comments should be taken to heart. In any event TE is at least 2500 years old. New name old stuff. It is called naturalism, pantheism, and things like that. Even pantheists think from time to time there is only One. The thing is that once there are gods that people think are equal to the One, things go down hill pretty fast.

If people who were TE's worried about finding out about the Bible and the Creator as much as say, the age of the earth that would be heartening. I get the feeling being disrespectful about one of God's attributes or His Word is okay by some but flip out if the "real" age of the earth is not adhered to. As a scientist, they should know what we know now is liable to change and then won't they feel silly when we find the age of the earth is really 4.75672 billion years old instead of 4.75671 billion years old. Knowing God is important and making fun of people who know God and take the Bible literally as I do and saying we are not Christians tells me something. Just some thoughts. The issue of God as Creator and Redeemer is important. God as Savior is found way back in the OT. But, then if you believe the Higher Criticism lies, then you wouldn't care would you?
Good stuff Jack.

Thanks for your support.

WT

[rogero]

Good stuff Jack.

Thanks for your support.

WT
Jack,

And you should be proud of this fine educated gentleman's support -- or not.

God's Peace,

R

[Jack777]

Why do I harp about the Creator?


Well, I know all you folks accept God as Creator and I harp on it because heterodoxy is as ruinous as apostasy in some ways. I am trying to get the ship turned round pointing to God as a priori in thought as concerns science. The way the past several generations have been taught is not to believe anything about the Bible unless it squares with science. This was very prevalent in the 19th century. I like rocks, science, facts, all that stuff. That is not it. I happen to care about scientists more than some people because I have an idea of the trials you face in keeping your Faith in the face of withering secular sentiment. Stuff like that...

[rogero]

Why do I harp about the Creator?


Well, I know all you folks accept God as Creator and I harp on it because heterodoxy is as ruinous as apostasy in some ways. I am trying to get the ship turned round pointing to God as a priori in thought as concerns science. The way the past several generations have been taught is not to believe anything about the Bible unless it squares with science. This was very prevalent in the 19th century. I like rocks, science, facts, all that stuff. That is not it. I happen to care about scientists more than some people because I have an idea of the trials you face in keeping your Faith in the face of withering secular sentiment. Stuff like that... You might want to talk to Glenn Morton and George Murphy about this.

You like rocks, and that's wonderful, but a complete picture of nature also includes the biological sciences -- anatomy, biochemistry, and genetics in particular. The posts I've seen you make on geology ("rocks") are very detailed studies of very narrow cases, and you appear to miss the forest for the trees -- and you do this in a most extreme way. It's kind of like you focus on a square centimeter of tree bark on one tree, and you ignore not only the forest but even the tree. I know you won't like it, but your reporting of Earth as 1-1.5 Ga, but without backing this up, and not apparently caring ("could care less" was your terminology) whether you were right or wrong on this, speaks volumes of your interest in the witness of nature that the Creator left behind for us to study.

The upshot is that one could make a case that your view of Creation is heterodox, in that it makes God into a nasty deceiver in view of the fact that there is ample evidence for change in the biosphere over time -- modification with common descent via mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection -- or as the atheists, agnostics, and "heterodox" theists like to called it, "evolution."

R

[Jack777]

You might make a case my view is heterodox, but you would have to pull it out of thin air to do so.

[rogero]

You might make a case my view is heterodox, but you would have to pull it out of thin air to do so.
Why don't you try to make a cogent response for a change? Your sage wisdom could be edifying for all of us who are less spiritually mature than you.

Seriously, one could make the argument that a narrow view of reality like yours that (apparently?) contradicts systematic observations of nature (or as I would call it, Creation) for the sake of your particular Scriptural hermeneutic ("the clear witness of Scripture," in your words) is in fact heterodox. Such a conclusion has nothing to do with "thin air".

R

[Jack777]

If you think my view is heterodox, then say so and make the case, support it, debate, go for it....

[rmwilliamsjr]

Ken Miller's book is good. But for a general survey of views about origins I strongly recommend Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, Evolution from Creation to New Creation (Abingdon, 2003). Peters is a Lutheran theologian who has had a long involvement with science-theology dialogue and Hewlett is a Roman Catholic molecular biologist. They are clear in their preference for TE but present, I think, very fair & helpful treatments of other views ranging from atheistic ones to YEC.

Shalom,
George
i really liked the book and am taking the opportunity to post my amazon review here. i hope it encourages people to read the book



This book is one of those extraordinary reads. I bought it simply because i had Martinez Hewlett along with Thomas Lindell and William Stoeger as team teachers for an unusual and very interesting seminar class at the U of Arizona, theology and biology. It was a continuation of Dr. Lindell's interests in bioethics and exactly how to relate science to theology in a constructive and useful, to both parties, manner. A truely unique experience for which i am again thankful. But if buying this book because of the author was the reason for opening it and reading the first few chapters, i would have stopped there, for the book itself must carry my interest from that point. This one did. Very much so, engaging, informative, interesting, clever, structured wisely- just a few of my comments. I seldom thoroughly enjoy a book as much as i did this one, i even wrote WOW on the last page in my yellow highlighter, it is good.

Why?
First, it represents the culmination of two really interesting people's work. Dr. Hewlett is a clever, talented, thoughtful and spiritually aware man. He is a poet, a novelist, a viral researcher, but most appropriately to this book- a good teacher. There is something special about a talented teacher who can unfold a topic IN ORDER, with a structure that shows the neophyte how the pieces fit together. And gives us the pieces in an order that helps us see the big picture that the author's themselves grasp. Hey readers, this is RARE. More often you hit things in a logical or chronological order, pieces are thrown at you without reference to the big picture. So you often are lost as a student in a new field in the forest, concentrating on the trees and never ever able to understand why anyone would actually come to this forest. A good teacher, or a good writer, never lets the structure interfere with your reason for being there, for your motivation to read the next page. But they have you anticipate and salivate for the next chapter or the next idea.

Second, it represents distilled knowledge, carefully written to teach the essentials of the debate so that you can be lead to understand their big point. There is lots of background information here, people, spectrums, differentiations between close ideas, that are the meat and potatoes of this feast. Yet the point they want you to understand is available in just a few pages- chapter 7 Theistic Evolution: A Constructive Proposal, but you must read the book pretty much in straight order to get there. This is because of the culmulativeness of the material, the distinctions that they make, and the specialized vocabulary you need to understand. So pick it up and read front to back, with a pen in hand to markup and take notes, this is not a walk in the park book, but a serious analysis, worthy of your best efforts.

Third, i am impressed at the carefulness of the structure. Intro, Darwin, Social Darwinism, Creationism, ID, TE then their proposal.
It is certainly the result of Dr. Hewlett's teaching of the topics to seniors at university, first they are looking outside of school perhaps for the first time in their lives, and second they are self-absorbed and desireous of internal consistency and coherence, those early adulthood dilemmas and opportunities. By presenting it this way, the interactions between people and ideas is so obvious that it is extremely natural to be drawn into the discussion and look inward. nice.
I appreciate the talent and insight, for instance, "science must first be extracted from it's ideological wrapping" pg. 19, but a constant and important theme throughout.

Hey, it is just such an awesome book, if you have any interest in the topic, just get it and don't waste time reading more reviews but get onto reading it.