tim
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by tim on Mar 13, 2011 15:11:45 GMT -8
I must say, I am VERY surprised to see this kind of conversation occurring on a church's website! What a big breath of fresh air... :-)
Josh gave me this link and invited me to join your discussion group. I decided to take a peek around and here I am!
I can't say how encouraging it is just to simply see the words "Francis Collins", "Scott Hahn" (although him writing a book about the New Atheists seems curious to me), etc. I was wondering where all the people who bought these kinds of books went to church - it had to be somewhere!
I've spent some years dissecting my own thoughts on this subject (what this discussion has morphed into anyway - not only a definition of TE but of the difference between it and Progressive Creationism.) I very much enjoyed the way in which you engaged each other even more than the thoughtful dialogue!
The best way for me to get an understanding of the subject is to try to throw out as many preconceived ideas I have about it that I can, then trying to imagine the process that God as the Potter would have went through making and molding His clay. My limited experience with seeing clay molded into art and/or function first brings to mind a rectangle of nondescript clay. The potter begins tearing away the corners to work towards something more round. This alone must seem violent, senseless and painful to the clay, yet from the perspective of the potter only the final grand creation was in his mind; the process is incidental and violence and pain were completely absent from his thoughts.
Play out this imagining and see him treat the clay with water, as Potters must, for the purpose of keeping his work moist and pliable, not for destruction. To the clay it must seem like a destructive flood, to the potter, just one step closer to culmination (I don't intend a flood to bring to mind Noah's flood but the many floods in Earth's earlier history.) Then watch him, with greatest purpose and precision, begin to shape the surface of this orb by pulling trees out of the ground and giving warmth and life by setting core of the sphere on perpetual fire.
In the above scenario it seems only natural that turning a simple piece of clay into a complex creation would require consecutive steps - each improving on the last and being made to more perfectly fit into the growing, changing world. I think this can be completely intuitive to anyone willing to see with fresh eyes.
I like this way of imagining creation because it takes something that seems innately destructive, scary, and confusing and shows me a point of view where confusion fades into clarity and become something beautiful. :-)
- Tim
|
|
tim
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by tim on Mar 13, 2011 15:19:47 GMT -8
About time: this is a big reason why Christians oppose TE and PC. I think we can begin to deal with this by trying to see this how God experiences the process, like above. Now we experience time in such a limited fashion. Not only are we stuck going one direction, but only one speed as well. We are doubly limited, doubly constrained, in relation to time. But we unintentionally impose our experience of time on God. It is so hard to visualize another being navigating time in any way other than how we have done it for our entire existence! But we must force ourselves to see time as we do the physical dimensions, as we do length and width. We intuitively feel free to travel about, nearly unconstrained by the two - any direction and at any speed we may choose.
If we just take time to meditate on the reality that God experiences - His unrestricted access to time - we can better appreciate how His experience of it is more 'natural' and ours is completely 'unnatural' (though these words don't quite work here!) Once we see His experience of time as the way 'real' time is supposed to be, we can apply that view to the creation process. 15 billion years sure seems like forever for someone traveling along in time as we do, but probably not so much to someone who can be anywhere, anywhen, for as long or as little as they desire. 15 billion years may be absurd from a human's tiny and tethered eyesight, but not to an unbound God who swims time in complete freedom! It may very well be that He created the universe 15 billion years ago - in the blink of His eye!
- Tim
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 13, 2011 16:35:42 GMT -8
That's how we roll  Why curious? I like the analogy. Is this also a way for you to reconcile the idea of animal death before the Fall? You have my agreement here, since I find myself pretty squarely in agreement with this line of thinking from Augustine to CS Lewis to Hugh Ross. However, I'd be curious how our open theist member(s) would respond. Robin- assuming the open theist perspective for a moment (painful as it is for me  ), is time still substantially different from God's perspective than from ours? |
|
tim
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by tim on Mar 13, 2011 17:46:42 GMT -8
Quote:
"Scott Hahn" (although him writing a book about the New Atheists seems curious to me
>>> Why curious?
Well, b/c he's mainly known as a protestant convert to Catholicism that is now kind of their champion for defending Catholic doctrine against protestant attack. I know he's prolific, both in writing and debate, but I have only seen the same topic (Catholic doctrine) come up every time from him. I was shocked to see something non-strictly Catholic from him.
..............
Quote:
In the above scenario it seems only natural that turning a simple piece of clay into a complex creation would require consecutive steps - each improving on the last and being made to more perfectly fit into the growing, changing world. I think this can be completely intuitive to anyone willing to see with fresh eyes.I like this way of imagining creation because it takes something that seems innately destructive, scary, and confusing and shows me a point of view where confusion fades into clarity and become something beautiful.
>>> Josh: I like the analogy. Is this also a way for you to reconcile the idea of animal death before the Fall?
I suppose that animal death is just sort of... incidental to the whole thing - it automatically resolves itself in the analogy. However, animal death has never posed a difficulty for me for some reason (it is one of the few things that hasn't!)
I was going to get into Common Descent through the eyes of Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creationism but decided not to complicate the issue. But it kind of applies to your question in the sense that to a potter, the thing you created to live on the earth is the same thing, no matter what stage it is at in the process. When you start with a tiny lump of clay, you see it for what it is and for what it will be at the same time. It doesn't go extinct then need to be re-created all over again as a superior version of the thing, it just progresses toward the intended product as time goes by in the process. So what looks like extinctions and re-creations to us may more likely be one continual process from the potter's perspective.
or something...
|
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Jun 6, 2015 9:24:24 GMT -8
Theistic evolution seems an oxymoron to me. If by evolution we mean macro-evolution, the changing of one kind of animal into another, you run afoul of science, which has never observed such a thing. So, if the Bible states God spoke and it came into being, evolution defined by small changes which turned into massive changes (all supposedly adding information to DNA coding, which also has not been scientifically observed), you afoul of what the Bible plainly states.
I find it fascinating that of all these various takes on origins they all but one have things in common - millions/billions of years, bequeathed to us from "science."
You have to manipulate the common reading of Genesis to harmonize with "science." It's amazing to read the comments of both professed believers and non-believers who write that the common reading of Genesis 1 is what it is, it just doesn't agree with science (so called).
I happen to believe the universe is infinite, old, has life all over the place, and the Earth/solar system (perhaps the Milky Way) is young; biblically, Genesis 1, common reading young. Observational science posits sound reasons to conclude that youth.
I believe the big bang is a big fake, invented by a Roman Catholic priest (Monsignor Georges Lemaître, 1927), endorsed by Rome to fit into its doctrines of Genesis 1-11 being fables, and allowing both professed believer and non-believer to co-exist quite comfortably.
Either Scripture is true or toss it. Either God makes the rules for allowing the Bible to interpret itself, based on sound principles, or it is nothing more than a set of opinions open to change as man changes his. You cannot have it both ways.
Either God spoke and it stood fast and was very good, or God spoke and it rambled on for billions of years and STILL hasn't gotten it right. What a terrible thing to do and say to the Sovereign of the universe. It states that God is the creator of death, which is all Darwinism is - the culture of death.
Science. Total BS when it comes to facts about origins, which they change as much as the weather (which is also filled with BS that global warmers run around trying to rearrange the planet to accommodate - sorry - they call themselves climate changers now).
HOW can professed believers allow such nonsense to be their guide?
As a former atheist I find this all incredibly ridiculous and discouraging. It is no wonder Christ said what He said about not finding much faith when He returns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 15, 2015 8:53:50 GMT -8
Getting a little afield of the topic of the thread here (definitions of theistic evolution), but I'll throw out a few responses:
I don't have the time here and now to marshal all the evidence for why the Big-Bang model of the universe (traceable to Einstein) is still the dominant model, but obviously my views are opposite yours; an old universe, but not infinitely old, and an earth billions of years old, etc..
As to Genesis 1, and your idea of a plain meaning, I can't see how you don't see that the language of Genesis 1 is obscure and not technical enough in most places to invite a variety of interpretations. When it is said that God said, "let there be", and there was, this could be envisioned in a million different ways. The point of the phrase is primarily that "God is the casual agent", the means or method isn't really explained in the text. I think this becomes clear when it is said that God said "let the land produce living creatures" (Verse 24). If the author really intended us to think that something popped up out of nowhere (as did the original cosmos) he wouldn't have said "let the land produce living creatures", which implies intermediary causes or events. Likewise, though God says "let us make man" in chapter 1, we are told in chapter 2 how he did it: not out of nothing, but out of dust and breath.
You rail against science for changing it's opinion on things, but that's how science works. They exchange somewhat accurate theories for better ones. Ideally, and I would argue, often, the scientific community "tests all things, and holds on to the good". After all, they owe their method in part to scriptural example. |
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Jun 16, 2015 12:23:15 GMT -8
First, as I said, secularists read Genesis and say, Yeah, it says what it says. THEY see it plainly. Professed believers do not. How odd is that?
Second, Genesis has to be framed within the totality of Scripture, all of it. God said, He spoke, and it was done. The prophets agree, Christ agrees, which would make sense, seeing He created. So, yes, I believe God miraculously introduced animal life right out of the sky, right out of the water, right out of the ground. With Adam He got up close and personal, which, by design, was meant to knock some sense into Lucifer's head, thinking he could be like the most High. Not. The entire record of creation week is a pageantry designed to put Lucifer in his place with the jaw dropping power of God, through Christ as Creator. I can see Lucifer standing there for a week, looking down, just twisting his foot back and forth in the dirt, nothing to say, legions of his angels wondering, What next?. And God topped it off by making creatures that can procreate! And the morning stars and sons of God sang and shouted for joy.
But, look, that's Bible. I want science to scientifically explain life, everything from nothing. Everything from a pencil dot. Science cannot do it. No amount of formulas and concepts can do it. It was a miracle, period. God spoke. Everything stood fast. All neo-Darwinian science can do is float around on a sea maybe's, possibly's, perhaps, could be's, and other non provable ideas, without chart or compass. Why professed Christians want to float around with them is beyond me.
Theistic evolution is an oxymoron, if evolution means 'from one kind to another.' There is zero evidence, zero empirical science to prove one kind of animal can turn into another, and the fossil record shows a turtle was always a turtle, and a fish has been a fish. etc, etc. So the very idea of theistic evolution weighs against the FULL testimony of Scripture.
You do not believe the universe is infinite. And who has checked that out to say? Wait till the Webb begins showing just how much bigger the universe is than science now thinks. And when they look back into the time they think has gone by and see more fully formed galaxies, etc, what will they say? Well, the BB will be sent back billions of more years. But, there is NO chaos out there. There never was. It has been order from day one, whenever that day was. I happen to believe "heaven" in Genesis and the fourth commandment, etc, is speaking of the planet's atmosphere, not the ether. So, I believe the universe is who knows how old? Earth? 6k yrs. I am easily convinced of that scientifically. As well as the solar system. All testable stuff, predictions made and seen through, like the magnetic fields of each planet, etc. There are so many holes in the BB it is, as I stated, something which is being challenged with more fervor within secular science.
You know, it's like everyone says, it all depends on the glasses you wear when you look at the evidence. Same evidence everyone has. Different glasses we all wear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 26, 2015 8:44:58 GMT -8
Don't have time to respond to all of this today, but I just want to say that "theistic evolution" isn't an oxymoron, because, whether you agree with it or not, it is insisting that the evolutionary process is ultimately dependent (either as an original cause or at many key intervals) on divine (and, conscious) initiative/ intervention.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Jun 26, 2015 11:42:50 GMT -8
Josh, just because a term has been created does not give it sense and meaning. Macro evolution cannot be proven by anything. Not the fossil record. Not the laboratory. Nothing. Evolution states life sprang forth spontaneously, somehow, someway totally unproven in any branch of science. Just because you say the Creator caused evolution does not make it so. The Bible says God spoke and everything stood fast. Done. Theistic evolution is an oxymoron. Theos cannot be shown from His word to have put anything into action which caused one kind of animal to turn into another. Darwinian evolution is not creation. The Bible says we have a CREATOR who created everything by fiat power, not endless mutations.
It is foolish to discuss this. The fact is, were it not for men who rejected Scripture to begin with two centuries ago NONE of this discussion would be taking place. Theistic evolution is laughed at by secular evolutionists who see it for what it is, a face-saving device, and wept over by creationists who see the Word being twisted as Peter warned was done to Paul's writings. Millions of youth from Christian homes are leaving the faith because of Darwin, and neo-darwinism.
Anyway, does not matter of you have time, take time or not. Macro-evolution has yet to be proven through empirical science. It is as much a matter of faith as believing in creation. You think by throwing the Creator into an evolutionary blender and saying billions of years of mutations made man in the image and likeness of God is sufficient to explain a brain and a conscience? You pick and choose your own timing for divine intervention? You pick and choose what Scripture in the first eleven chapters of Genesis is literal and which is not? That is Romanism. Plain, papal Romanism. You limit God, cannot find human reason in the stated record, so you change it to mean something current science can accept, which man can reason out, when current science rejects it?
(sigh)
Have mercy, O Lord.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 25, 2015 8:03:51 GMT -8
Lately I've been reinvestigating/ updating my views on science and scripture, etc.. and I find myself more inclined toward the theistic evolution viewpoint as opposed to the traditional "old-earth progressive special creation" viewpoint I have held for many years. If anyone is interested in reviving conversation along these lines, I'd be up for it!
|
|
), is time still substantially different from God's perspective than from ours?
