I agree. So why should you now look for science to decide how creation happened when you were convinced by a personal experience.
I am not denying science here. I am just acknowledging the fact that miracles happens and science cannot really predict or say anything about this. It’s also reasonable to assume that if something in history happened miraculously and it was investigated through the scientific method, scientists would come up with hypothesis that do not involve anything miraculous.
Some of these hypothesis may even be convincing. However, they would not be what truly happened.
I would restate that to say Scientific explanations provide the best natural explanation.
There is no guarantee that they are even partially true. They could be totally off, especially considering the limitations in investigating events in deep history.
The problem is that you do not live consistent with this. If you did, you would not care so much about science giving a limited view @Ashwin_s. Jesus had no need for science. Why is it so important to you?
The problem is when people like @Faizal_Ali are misled to think that science has established that all creation is caused by “just physical and chemical interactions”. This kind of deception has real world consequences that can last for an eternity.
Secondly, I am pointing out the limitations of science and giving clear reasons why scientific explanations of the origin of man, life the earth etc cannot constrain the interpretation of scripture.i have been consistent in asking to leave science out of it as much as practically possible and allow scripture to talk for itself.
Get what… that miracles don’t happen?
What exactly are you disputing here?
Edit: as I have said before, I have talked about interpreting Scripture all along. Science does not take the miraculous in to account. I believe the scripture is an accurate description of history (wherever it’s describing history).
If I don’t feel compelled to reinterpret Jesus’ miracles such as feeding the 5000 because it contradicts with scientific explanations. Why would I do so for the act of creation?
I don’t get why @DaleCutler feels compelled to talk about special providence when most of what Jesus did in the NT is not just providence. Whether it’s his birth, or miracle or ressurection.
Ultimately our hope as Christians is on a ressurection which can’t happen just by an act of Providence.
Do we need to reinterpret how Elijah multiplied oil for the poor widow, or made an axe float in water?
I don’t know a lot of how the scientific idea of common descent can be reconciled with special creation. However, that doesn’t mean it cannot happen in the future.
The major problem imo is giving too much importance to naturalism when interpreting the bible. Could God have used evolution? Sure.
But it’s also possible God personally intervened to create new species.
To me, it seems that all this talk of Providence is just a bias towards naturalism because of a cultural preference for natural solutions.
Yes. It is also possible that when game officials flip the coin to see who is in possession first, that God gives the coin a little nudge every time. What value is there in trying to get to the bottom of that?
For me, it is much easier to simply accept the histories that geology, astronomy, and biology depict, while simultaneously having faith that the Risen Christ I have encountered has been Lord of all of space-time since the very first moment of the Big Bang. Scientific knowledge is incomplete, therefore the histories it provides contradict neither the Lordship of Christ nor the miracles He has performed.
Indeed, I believe He has eternal existence outside of our space-time.
Then why push for reinterpreting the bible based on Scientific knowledge which both of us agree is incomplete? If science cannot contradict 5 loafs of bread feeding 5000 people, then why should we be bothered about scientific predictions which are not as sure? We have far more direct scientific evidence that 5 loaves of bread cannot feed 5000 people than we have for any claims of evolution.
So why not just wait with the understanding that evolutionary science is incomplete and perhaps it’s just plain wrong?
The entire issue in hermeneutics occurs when scientific knowledge is elevated to the level of scripture as the “book of nature”.
And science is equated with scriptural interpretation (science being viewed as the interpretation of the “book of nature”).
In addition to the above there are other reasons for one to be skeptical of evolutionary science. But even if you accept it, why propose an epistemology where scriptural interpretation must abide by “incomplete” scientific understanding?
I am not sure I see the GAE when the apostles especially Paul talk about Adam and Eve.
It’s definitely an interesting idea. However an earlier Adam and Eve who are unique even in terms of biology makes more sense to me.
And that’s closer to the RTB model.
A recent Adam and Eve (Say 5000 years ago) is a disaster imo. I have already told you why.
Yes it does. And it also allows for Adam and Eve to be biologically unique.
This is important because scripture describes humanity in terms of descent from Adam. (There are work arounds to this of course…but the idea of actual descent from Adam fits scripture much more naturally).
Edit: But then, it’s entirely possible that fossils are being dated much earlier than they really existed. I.e that the science (which I think is correct on the ages of fossils) is wrong.
I.e that I am wrong about the age of life.
And with that, the GAE resolves all the scientific objections to the RTB model. You will like the book I am writing right now with WLC on precisely this topic.
There is nothing in evolution that requires to you reinterpret Scripture. So stop saying that nonsense.
Knowledge that can be seen by all and is not constrained to the misinterpretation of one word in Genesis 1, a word that means two different things within one verse and then again has a third meaning early in Genesis 2! And YECs think their understanding is infallible. Oh, Lord, when will they learn the damage they are doing. Your patience is amazing.
YECism also belittles the import of Psalm 8:4, not only because of the vastness of the size of the universe, but also because of the vastness of its antiquity, and both speak to the vastness of our God.
Was God short of time that he had create the universe in only 144 hours?
When did science ever declare God’s glory or understand his attributes. If anything, Science is blind to this reality.
If “Scientific knowledge” represents knowledge that can be known by all… then this knowledge itself is ignorance of God and his attributes.
This is a misrepresentation of the nature of science. Science is not natural theology. This confusion between the study of nature apart from God (as done in science) and the study of God by studying nature leads to a skewed hermeneutics.
You are misrepresenting the nature of Science here.
YECs of course commit the opposite error of using their interpretation of the bible to do science. I find it strange, buy I don’t see it as harmful as elevating scientific knowledge to the same level as scripture or the interpretations of scripture.
YECism also belittles the import of Psalm 8:4, not only because of the vastness of the size of the universe, but also because of the vastness of its antiquity, and both speak to the vastness of our God.
(And that makes it aesthetically repugnant, as well.)
I agree to an extent. But even if the universe was small, we would still be very small before God because God’s nature does not depend on creation.
Even if the universe was young, God would still be omniscient, omnipresent, etc. His attributes are independent of the attributes of creation.
