-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can a Darwinist Truly Believe in any Miracle?
- Thread starter Aaron
- Start date
Theistic Evolutionist is an older title, the modern term is Evolutionary Creationist.
I don't believe that anyone is a "Darwinist" anymore - that is an antiquated term.
BioLogos is an Evolutionary Creationist website that provides comprehensive answers to a wide range of questions.
Is there room in evolutionary creation to believe in miracles? [LINK]
Rob
I don't believe that anyone is a "Darwinist" anymore - that is an antiquated term.
BioLogos is an Evolutionary Creationist website that provides comprehensive answers to a wide range of questions.
Is there room in evolutionary creation to believe in miracles? [LINK]
Rob
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
I believe it is foolish to hold to theistic evolution but I do not see why that would interfere with believing in any miracle. Their belief is based on process not the inability for God to perform miracles. At least as I understand it.
Is that the reason you believe in evolution?
Inspector Javert
Active Member
I agree with you about "Darwinism's" antiquity....that is, at least to say that IF there were an "Evolutionist" model which were viable...I think that the Darwinian model is beyond repair, and irressurectable. It's simply indefensible scientifically.
In order to believe in a form of biological Evolution as an explanation of the myriads of viable specie on Planet Earth...something VASTLY more explanatory and also predictive must be hypothesized. But, what would that be?
Some assumption of a "Punctuated Equilibrium?"....
I simply don't think there is ANY "Evolutionist" model which will stand the scrutiny of modern Science.
Deacon...with all due respect...I would like to rejoinder what you quoted in the article. I will quote it in toto...and tell you my area of disagreement:
I agree with EVERYTHING here. Everything said here, is simply Bible-Creationism as classically understood. No "Creationist" denies the reality of miracles....
But, if I may, please look VERY closely at the last sentence.
I am not a holder of "evolutionary" thinking in the historical sense.
I have NO problem considering that THIS current world is only some 6 -7 thousand years old, but that it was a "recreation" of something that existed before (God moved in the dark across something that already existed before the first day even began).
What I disagree with is that any creature "evolved" in the classical sense of that presented by Darwin in the "Origin of Species." Each creature was created and ordered by God. That they may have similar characteristics (as a human does to a pig) doesn't serve to bring any truth to indicators of similarity obliging a common ancestral heritage (accept I have met numerous humans that would make excellent pigs).
It doesn't bother me for someone to point to some fossil as dating to millions of years ago, and some other suggesting it only dates to 6000 years ago. Ultimately, such arguments mean very little - both do not deny the creation story given in Genesis other than what humankind desires to state MUST be held - but is actually only their opinion that it MUST be held. It is the "evolve" part that is ungodly in every application.
Therefore - no, I am not a "theistic evolutionist."
In fact, I consider all "evolutionary" thinking an actual affront to God and Godliness.
I have NO problem considering that THIS current world is only some 6 -7 thousand years old, but that it was a "recreation" of something that existed before (God moved in the dark across something that already existed before the first day even began).
What I disagree with is that any creature "evolved" in the classical sense of that presented by Darwin in the "Origin of Species." Each creature was created and ordered by God. That they may have similar characteristics (as a human does to a pig) doesn't serve to bring any truth to indicators of similarity obliging a common ancestral heritage (accept I have met numerous humans that would make excellent pigs).
It doesn't bother me for someone to point to some fossil as dating to millions of years ago, and some other suggesting it only dates to 6000 years ago. Ultimately, such arguments mean very little - both do not deny the creation story given in Genesis other than what humankind desires to state MUST be held - but is actually only their opinion that it MUST be held. It is the "evolve" part that is ungodly in every application.
Therefore - no, I am not a "theistic evolutionist."
In fact, I consider all "evolutionary" thinking an actual affront to God and Godliness.
When we discuss miracles, we observe at it from man's perspective.
God has his hand in all creation, he holds everything together (Jer 31.35; Col 1.17; Heb 1.3 ). This can be labeled "sustaining theistic action", the outworking of the laws of nature that God created.
God also is active in guiding his creation toward his purposes [examples: Exodus 4, Daniel where God has a hand in fashioning man's path]. Some wondrous miracles occurred through God's judicious use of natural events [Josh 3:14-16]. These are miracles we can sometimes explain. They might be called "normal-appearing active theistic action".
Other times God directs events to depart from what we normally expect. This is the "miraculous-appearing theistic action" we commonly call a miracle.
So what is science? It's a systematically organized study of the phenomena of the physical world; an attempt to study God's "sustaining theistic action".
Those who study nature limit their study to what is repeatable and observable in nature;
but they don't have to deny that he works outside of nature in a variety of miraculous ways.
Rob
I guess they COULD, but it is absolutely logically inconsistent.
("evolution" is a pejorative term...everyone believes in some version of "evolution". What is debated is the religious belief of common descent.")
Common descent is based on atheistic pseudo-scientific principles, which have an apriori commitment to the idea of explaining all phenomena without appealing to any supernatural interference. The theory of "common descent" is not scientific, therefore, it is just the only alternative to special creation. We have scientific facts, such as analogous structures (at both a physiological and genetic level), which can only be explained in two ways: they are either evidence of heredity from a common ancestor, or they are evidence of a common designer. Since (as you will read in any basic introductory secular science textbook) appealing to the supernatural is not allowed in secular scientific explanations, you MUST accept the theory of common descent, if you choose to adhere to atheistic presuppositions.
For the Christian, this is a ridiculous thing to buy into. We don't reject the idea of supernatural interference....indeed, a Christian confesses the absolute necessity of God in upholding the world moment by moment. He is involved in EVERYTHING.
Now, those same pseudo-scientific principles would interpret all evidence of the resurrection, and the virgin birth, in a similar manner... thus according to "science" supernatural interference is excluded, and those events never occurred..."something else" happened, regardless of how absurd any alternative theory might sound.
One would wonder, if a person just arbitrarily "chose" to accept those things, in spite of their acceptance of atheistic scientific principles, why they would also not "choose" to accept special creation, as is clearly described in Genesis.
Post-modern irrationality is the only possible answer. Thank you, Jacques Derrida and Friedrich Nietzsche for the illogical world you have delivered us!
("evolution" is a pejorative term...everyone believes in some version of "evolution". What is debated is the religious belief of common descent.")
Common descent is based on atheistic pseudo-scientific principles, which have an apriori commitment to the idea of explaining all phenomena without appealing to any supernatural interference. The theory of "common descent" is not scientific, therefore, it is just the only alternative to special creation. We have scientific facts, such as analogous structures (at both a physiological and genetic level), which can only be explained in two ways: they are either evidence of heredity from a common ancestor, or they are evidence of a common designer. Since (as you will read in any basic introductory secular science textbook) appealing to the supernatural is not allowed in secular scientific explanations, you MUST accept the theory of common descent, if you choose to adhere to atheistic presuppositions.
For the Christian, this is a ridiculous thing to buy into. We don't reject the idea of supernatural interference....indeed, a Christian confesses the absolute necessity of God in upholding the world moment by moment. He is involved in EVERYTHING.
Now, those same pseudo-scientific principles would interpret all evidence of the resurrection, and the virgin birth, in a similar manner... thus according to "science" supernatural interference is excluded, and those events never occurred..."something else" happened, regardless of how absurd any alternative theory might sound.
One would wonder, if a person just arbitrarily "chose" to accept those things, in spite of their acceptance of atheistic scientific principles, why they would also not "choose" to accept special creation, as is clearly described in Genesis.
Post-modern irrationality is the only possible answer. Thank you, Jacques Derrida and Friedrich Nietzsche for the illogical world you have delivered us!
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
This article (interview) with Michael Behe just about covers "where I am" on the issue of evolution.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1449
I already know the answer. It's no.
You were convinced by what you have been told that evolution is true. You really do believe it. As a result, instead of Genesis guiding your interpretation of facts in nature, Darwinism (or whatever variation thereof is fashionable today) guides your interpretation of the history given in Genesis.
That is the difference between a genuine faith and a chosen faith. One guides, the other is guided.
So I ask again, Can a Darwinist truly believe in any miracle?
You were convinced by what you have been told that evolution is true. You really do believe it. As a result, instead of Genesis guiding your interpretation of facts in nature, Darwinism (or whatever variation thereof is fashionable today) guides your interpretation of the history given in Genesis.
That is the difference between a genuine faith and a chosen faith. One guides, the other is guided.
So I ask again, Can a Darwinist truly believe in any miracle?
No they can NOT!