The point of the angel thing was to determine whether you will accept just any hypothesis for which there can be no evidence, or whether you are limiting yourself to guided evolution. What are your criteria for rejecting (presumably) angel-pushed planets but accepting guided evolution?
And no, I accepted the premise that God exists; I’m saying that even if I accept the premise, I would not think that God guided primate evolution. There is no reason I can see to think it’s true. What’s your reason?
I have no over-arching goal, only a set of goals. I like to have interesting conversations, understand where others are coming from, derive entertainment, examine my beliefs and those of others, and perhaps get you to do the same. And I’m not sure what a “nook in Christianity” is.
Believing in God-guided evolution does not overturn science… it is a theological adjunct to the existing science made necessary by the Biblical investment in the nature of human creation.
There is no corresponding Biblical investment in angels moving planets around.
Ah, so your necessary assumption there isn’t just that God exists, or even that God is the particular person you’re thinking of. It’s that some of the events in Genesis must be true. You forgot to mention that before.
How do you choose which events must be true? In particular, how did you decide that Adam and Eve must be real people and specially created?
If you do not see a reason for it… then you dont understand Joshua’s logical basis for his work here. Joshua, perhaps you can explain it in terms John can assimilate?
So, you believe it because it’s necessary to what you think Genesis says. That goes way beyond “God exists”.
How about the biblical investment in a worldwide flood that killed every person and animal not on the ark? How about the biblical investment in a flat earth, covered by a roof, above and below which is water? How about biblical investment in 6 days of creation, plants existing before the sun and stars, talking snakes, and so on?
The dilemma, @John_Harshman, is that Pro-Evolution Christians see too much natural evidence to justify dismissing Evolution… while Creationists see too much New Testament investment in de novo Adam to justify Evolution.
However, if the benchmark is Evolution, with the minor miraculous event of Special Creation of Adam and Eve, it is possible to avoid overturning the science of Evolution … while at the same time providing for the theological ramifications of God-created Adam/Eve.
The Biblical investment in Adam as a Specially Created being is much more urgently felt than any subsequent investment in 6 days of creation…or other corollaries common to Creationism!
For example … Old Earth Creationists defend the science of Geology… but cannot bring themselves to assert that Adam was made by evolution. Yet, conversely, Evolution is not disproved by special creation of just 2 humans.
Fortunately, more and more Christians are rejecting the notion of a global flood. It is possible because a global flood is not a belief necessary to the logic of Salvation.
So you’re a creationist? Personally, I think the need for Adam and Eve in Christianity is spurious, theologically. What’s your case for that need? What “New Testament investment”? Original sin? Jesus alluding to them?
As a Unitarian Universalist, i do not feel the urgency personally, but i understand it… just as i understand the urgency to think Mary was impregnated by God.
My supporting my fellow Christian’s belief in Mary’s circumstances does not overturn general science. It is a small miracle in a world full of science.
And millions of Eastern Orthodox might agree with you because they dont give a wit about Original Sin. But allowing for the miracle of Adam and Eve poses no problem to the institution of science (generally speaking).
Let me get this straight. You aren’t the sort of creationist you were talking about, who thinks Adam and Eve must be created, for theological reasons. You are only arguing the point because you want to be accommodating to those people. Is that right? Please try to clarify what you have meant by the last several posts.
Do you think that Jesus makes sense apart from the resurrection? HIs contemporary, Paul, who claims to have met him, thinks not. In fact, he said that if Jesus was not resurrected, the teaching about him was false, and, moreover, he and his cohorts were false witnesses of God (which was a very big deal.)
The fact i have had to invest so much time on these points explains, nearly perfectly, why i take this stance. It is educational for all witnesses… on both sides of the Christian divide!
Ive spelled out everything. Do you think @swamidass created this site to reach atheists? Hardly!
He created it to establish the basis of a new reconciliation between Creationists (who want to overturn science) and Evolutionist Christians who are already happy with a few miracles in the Cosmos!