A Theistic Evolutionist is Taken to Task

[Aaron]

http://creation.com/theistic-evolution-problematic

But speaking of that majority rejection (and remember too that the majority also hounded the father of antisepsis, laughing soundly at the idea that germs could cause disease, plus countless other examples of overwhelming majorities being wrong in the history of science), I would say the following. Namely, that given the Apostle Paul’s comments in Romans 1 of fallen humanity’s natural tendency to reject God, and give worship and glory to the created things rather than the Creator, (whom they do not like to retain in their knowledge, he writes), what we see happening should not be surprising. Especially the lack of open-mindedness, even vindictiveness, demonstrated as even those who merely believe in a vague sort of ‘Intelligent Design’ are professionally persecuted.​

 

[quantumfaith]

http://creation.com/theistic-evolution-problematic

But speaking of that majority rejection (and remember too that the majority also hounded the father of antisepsis, laughing soundly at the idea that germs could cause disease, plus countless other examples of overwhelming majorities being wrong in the history of science), I would say the following. Namely, that given the Apostle Paul’s comments in Romans 1 of fallen humanity’s natural tendency to reject God, and give worship and glory to the created things rather than the Creator, (whom they do not like to retain in their knowledge, he writes), what we see happening should not be surprising. Especially the lack of open-mindedness, even vindictiveness, demonstrated as even those who merely believe in a vague sort of ‘Intelligent Design’ are professionally persecuted.​

YAY for Richard. I think he expressed himself eloquently, honestly and clearly.

 

[Aaron]

YAY for Richard. I think he expressed himself eloquently, honestly and clearly.

And yet so wrongly.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

YAY for Richard. I think he expressed himself eloquently, honestly and clearly.

Hmm ... from his diatribe:

My objections to the creation account in Genesis are not based on a hostility to Christianity. They are based on your persistent insistence that these verses must be taken literally (or ‘plainly’, as you all like to say). This point of view, which flies in the face of centuries of hard-won scientific knowledge, has led creationists to erect a framework (façade?) of scientific inconsistencies, contradictions, and special pleadings that has given YEC a deservedly low (virtually zero) level of influence in the scientific community and in the community of thoughtful lay-people.

He elevates science above Scripture, preferring to argue from the viewpoint of what secularists "know" -- which in reality is less than nothing -- and refuses to acknowledge the truth and power of God's word. And you say "YAY"???? Sorry, QF, but ...

 

[Revmitchell]

Hmm ... from his diatribe:He elevates science above Scripture, preferring to argue from the viewpoint of what secularists "know" -- which in reality is less than nothing -- and refuses to acknowledge the truth and power of God's word. And you say "YAY"???? Sorry, QF, but ...

You have to in order to believe evolution.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hmm ... from his diatribe:He elevates science above Scripture, preferring to argue from the viewpoint of what secularists "know" -- which in reality is less than nothing -- and refuses to acknowledge the truth and power of God's word. And you say "YAY"???? Sorry, QF, but ...

he just dismissed the doctrines of revealtion and inspration of the Bible to us in one swoop!

ANY time one reads "in light of current scientific 'facts" or "in light of current scholarship" look out, usually going to see the Bible cut down and sawed apart!

 

[Aaron]

ANY time one reads "in light of current scientific 'facts" or "in light of current scholarship" look out, usually going to see the Bible cut down and sawed apart!

What they really mean is, "according to what I've been told." Who here really knows anything about the beginning except what he has been told?

The question boils down to, whom do you believe?

 

[just-want-peace]

What they really mean is, "according to what I've been told." Who here really knows anything about the beginning except what he has been told?

The question boils down to, whom do you believe?

The very basic bottom line.
There are many things not specified in scripture, leaving one to "theorize" about those topics, BUT, those things that are specified are, well, specified, and I would be very, VERY cautious about saying that God meant something other than what He actually said!!!!

But in too many cases "--fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

 

[Van]

Quite a lot of the give and take in the OP link refers to using logical fallacies in argumentation. The OEC say the YEC can trace their roots to the flat earth society, and the YEC say the OEC fostered godless views including those that led to Nazi doctrine. Neither effort moves the ball toward truth.

As was observed, both sides spout interpretations of God's word, to the effect that conjecture rules the day. Yet Job 38 teaches we do not know how God did it, only that He did. Pride (my view is better than your view) seems to fuel all these discussions that descend into insult.

 

[Aaron]

Job 38 teaches we do not know how God did it, only that He did.

Wow. Moses penned 31 verses and nearly 800 words merely to say that God did it?

Amazing.

Thank God for Darwin, to tell us how God did it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yet Job 38 teaches we do not know how God did it, only that He did.

That is not what it says. Good grief.

 

[Van]

Just read Job 38, folks, and judge for yourself. The nay-Sayers will always be with us, casting aspersions, while providing no alternate view.