Are you admitting that evolutionary science is based on philosophical materialism?
I was referring to theologians who took naturalism seriously enough to deny the various miracles mentioned in the bible. Unfortunately there are theologians who are like that.
I am using your definition where materialism is defined as using scientific evidence to reach a conclusion.
You have already said that you will accept evolution if the evidence supports it, correct? Is that materialism?
Does it apply to accepting evolution?
In this case, materialism is being defined as denying the miracles in the bible because they do not have natural explanationsâŚ
Part of what I was objecting to is the idea of âprovidenceâ being able explain creation to a large extent.
Its connected to what nature can do independent to God in Christian theology.
Not necessarily. Everybody in the debate accepts evolution to varying degrees in the debate.
Thatâs why the discussion touched on the âcompletenessâ and âsufficiencyâ of scientific explanations and treating Scientific theories as authoritative.
In this case, I would say evolution is not complete or sufficient to explain biodiversity.
And I would also assert that it could be wrong to varying levels.
If a christian believes the process of evolution is capable of producing the biodiversity we see with God being involved in the same way God is involved in all of nature, would you classify that as materialism?
Depends on how he defines Godâs involvement.
Wouldnât accept anything that tends towards deism or invests Godâs attributes to nature.
True, but there is poetry in his creation, and in more ways than one. The vastness of the universe, both in its size and antiquity, is a wonderful metaphor, and Psalm 19 utilizes it.
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.
And Romans 1 uses it as well:
God is an artist with words as well as in creation, and YECism subtracts from it, to use understatement.
The vastness of the universe doesnât describe how big God is. The universe is finite, God is not.
The universe has a beginning, God does not.
Yes, the vastness of the universe does impress on the human mind that God is far greater than we can imagine. I donât know about you, but one doesnât really need the age of the earth or large telescopes to get this message.
Even a 500 years ago, when people did not know the age of the universe or about galaxies, the earth that we could see with our eyes was enough to fill us with awe.
The psalmist did not know much Science, but he didnât need it to grasp that God is glorious.
I definitely agree with you that God is awesome! And I am sure every YEC, OEC and TE does tooâŚ
Unfortunately, many other people who know the age of the earth, and vastness of the universe are still blind to the existence of God.
If you want to find out what philosophies substracts from Godâs glory (in human eyes)⌠all you need to do is examine what these people believe and what philosophy it is that blinds them.
I see YECs and other Christians as brothers in this regard.
It seems as if you missed that completely.
Sorry if i did.
Edit: though of course it might be a stretch to think the psalmist viewed the age of the universe and itâs size using the same measure (billions of years of time and light years for distance).
A visual appraisal of the earth and the skies was enough for the psalmist to realise things.
I would tend to look at it from the other direction. Instead of us humans defining how God is involved in nature it makes more sense to look at nature to see how God is involved. If the evidence indicates that evolution is no different than any other natural process, then it seems wise to have a unified theological position that is consistent across all natural processes.
If evolution is the same as other natural processes, could that still fit into a theology that is palatable to you?
Naturalism does not preclude those âmiraclesâ, and the denial of naturalism does not mean they could have happened.
âNaturalismâ is a metaphysical position that cannot be demonstrated to be true or false, as far as I can tell. In that respect it is no different than any other metaphysical position.
So we are left with deciding whether stories people told millenia ago are sufficient reason to believe things happened which our direct experience tells us can never happen. Taking a position on ânaturalismâ does not help with that endeavour.
True, but the human authors did not always know all the implications of their words. They are still relevant to what we have learned through science. The Bible is a timeless book for all ages (no matter what @Faizal_Ali thinks 
).
I have just recently studied it in some detail and it is indeed an astonishing document or collection of documents.
@Ashwin_s â It would make things easier if you would recognize that evolution was designed and that Godâs providence is in the fabric of it.
(I mentioned somewhere else that there is [amazing] planning in exaptation.)
Sure. However the crux of Psalm 19 is from verse 7 onwards. The awesomeness of nature must cause us to pay attention to his Law and Precepts and be obedient to him.
I donât think YECs lack fruit in this regard overall.I am wary of liberal churches in this matter though.
What can I say. I am not as impressed with evolution as you are.
As to providence, we believe in the virgin birth and the ressurection. We look forward to our own ressurection and a new heaven and a new earth as our blessed hope.
Providence is wonderful, but itâs just a side player in a miraculous main story.
That would involving defining what nature is and defining natureâs relationship with God. Earlier discussions must have shown you have hard that is without mentioning God.
Whatâs a natural process?
Theologians would find it very hard to define a natural process without explaining how God interacts with matter in the universe.
Providence is integral with the main story and cannot be separated from it. Think of it as the verb in the sentence â you donât have a sentence without it. Itâs not a side player, it is at play every second of your life and all the time. Among other things, it is your Fatherâs activity in your behalf.
Cloud formation, chemical reactions, planetary orbits, bacterial infections, and the like.
Thatâs fine. All I am saying is that evolution could be treated the same as any other process we see in nature.
Thatâs an interesting thought.
What implications or ramifications do you see in that?