Classic Progressive Creation Literature?

It seems to be how science operates today. And the results from science have been pretty beneficial to most of us. Science works.

And God is alive and active! It’s not an either/or… but, you already knew that.

Let’s be clear. The line does not have to be blurry. The fact that it historically has been blurry does not mean that right now it cannot be clear.

That is my view too. We need to protect the neutrality and autonomy of science here, while allowing for disagreement and different ways of understanding science within theology. That separation is fundamental, in my view. I agree, it is not always followed well, especially in the history of science and theology of evolution. However, I keep the lines clear.

1 Like

Being dead towards God doesn’t make Him any less alive. Nietzsche is an interesting choice of inspiration for someone who opposes totalitarianism, don’t you think?



Once again I am delighted by your perspective! We can really benefit from your contributions to a cutting edge dialogue on difficult material.

I’ve been spending my free moments here with the hope that men and women of Faith can see that no further harm to civilization is wrought by allowing for the miraculous creation of two humans (easily comparable to the already miraculous event of a fully human and fully divine being being born to a young maiden with only 23 chromosomes to speak of! - - as long as the de novo creation of Adam and Eve are paired with a small population of humans (even provided with God’s image), created with God’s use of evolutionary processes applied over thousands and millions of hominid development!

Visit frequently!

Some parts are and some parts are untested and unsupported claims. Why are there these unsupported claims such as all living organisms share a common ancestor? UC Berkeley calls this a working assumption. Do you think this is a fact, a tested hypothesis, an untested hypothesis or as UCB described it a working assumption?

Under the rules of science as I know it, common descent is a tested and validated hypothesis. It is so thoroughly clear, it is often used as an assumption for other reasoning in science. That does not mean it has not been tested or validated, nor does it mean that all claimed tests are actually valid.

That does not mean its true, but is the best scientific understanding we have at the moment. You are welcome to disagree, but I insist you keep the scientific debate about common descent exclusively to threads about common descent. If you like I can even set up a thread all your own, where you can make your case against it. However, I do not want every thread to degrade into a repetitive debate.

So dispute it if you like, but not on threads that are not specifically about the science of common descent. Is that okay with you @colewd?

1 Like

Sure. Patrick made the claim the evolutionary biology is science. I was responding with an example where I think the claim is ahead of the evidence which is universal common descent. I honestly believe this is an ideological claim.

I agree with you common descent is real, the line of demarkation is the question. We have common ground here :slight_smile:

1 Like

I think God is neither alive nor dead but non-existent. Not fan of Nietzsche. My beliefs can be summarized as:

“There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Ideology 1st
Evidence 2nd?

1 Like

Since I have never seen any evidence of God in the natural world, I created an ideology to live by that has worked so far as I am healthy, wealthy, and wise.

Look at Jesus: Peace Be With You. He is pretty compelling, even if you are healthy, wealthy, and wise.

1 Like

Ok I will look at that if you watch this video:

Hehe, Carlin is hilarious. I’ll watch him for the fun of it. :slight_smile: You should only look into the stuff there when you want to for yourself.

1 Like

It’s an idealistic scenario. Evolution already deals with and delivers theological arguments. For example every argument against design is as much a theological argument as one for design. So when scientists make a “bad design” argument and say something is not designed by an intelligence, they are making untestable theological claims.
I have seen papers waxing eloquent about how nature designed amazing machines… This is also an essentially untestable claim in many cases.
To me it looks like science is already in the theological market place. It’s just acting coy and avoiding responsibility for its claims.
If Science is neutral, then it should walk out of some of these spaces it occupies until it develops tests for/against design.


I fully understand the debate about methodological naturalism, but one thing that I understand about methodological naturalism is that different people have different ideas about what exactly it means.

In particular, does it mean an a priori assumption that miracles do not happen, and evolution was completely undirected by anything other than purely natural forces? Or does it refer to something more akin to Stephen Jay Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria, in which miracles and divine intervention are merely in science’s blind spot?

If it is the former case, then it is a presupposition. If it is the latter case, you need to explain that clearly to people who understand it to be the former.

Well yes, it would be dishonest not to – provided, of course, that the scientific results stand up to scrutiny and that I’ve understood them properly.

In any case I may have seen results that falsify certain views about human origins or cosmology, but I haven’t yet seen anything that falsifies the existence of God, a divinely guided aspect to evolution, or the Resurrection.

1 Like

I don’t like to spoil the party, but… climate change, the anthropocene age, reducing western life expectancy, nuclear arsenals, Novichok, overpopulation… (on the one side)

And southern slavery worked to create much of the wealth of the industrialised powers of America and Europe. It worked - but that doesn’t baptize its methods… (on the other side)

Additionally, of course, science was working very well from the 17th-19th centuries too, before God was excluded from it. Remember - religion got us to the moon, through Bede, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, von Braun, Lovell…


Leaving aside the tendentious claims that science is either neutral or autonomous, we need to protect the neutrality and autonomy of science from what?

1 Like