Yes… so for me the bottom line is to give God the glory for creation. He is the designer/artist/architect for all life… as the bible says, he created all things by his wisdom.
And I don’t see any reason to rule out special creation at some point. I also see each command of God as his logos (i.e Jesus- the second person of the Trinity) going forth to accomplish his will. So it’s not just nature tinkering away… There is an active element of God’s work… perhaps in terms of the information required to create all the variety we see…
@Michael_Callen
1 Like
Science has always been out of the theological study of evolution! (Boy, you fell into that one!)
1 Like
Many of the early evolutions, and modern ones too, have not kept clear lines. That also is a fact.
Hahaha… now that is funny. Mean, but funny. 
1 Like
You’ve not read Alfred Russel Wallace, then. Or Asa Gray. Both close associates of Darwin from the start - Wallace was co-describer of the theory.
Sorry, no I haven’t even read Darwin yet. Been meaning to get to the evolution books of 1859, but all the new discoveries in evolution are keeping me pretty busy keeping up to the latest and greatest in the theory of evolution.
You should try this one out:
1 Like
Wait a minute!! You are drinking the Kool Aid but haven’t read the ingredients yet??!!
2 Likes
@Patrick is kind of an “overly trusting” sorta guy… ; )
1 Like
Hahaha… @Patrick … Is that so? No faith, just trust?? 
Actually, Jon has a valid point. Objecting to people introducing religious presuppositions into science just implies that you are introducing anti-religious presuppositions of your own. That may or may not be what you intend, of course, but it’s what it sounds like to many people. That’s why I always hammer the point home about focusing first and foremost on making sure that your/their facts are straight instead.
In any case, as @swamidass pointed out, when it comes to evolution, the line between science and theology is a pretty blurry one.
2 Likes
I disagree. Science operates under MN, so bringing in religious presuppositions should not be even allowed into a science discussion as then the discussion is no longer MN and isn’t science anymore, it’s theology. I for one, don’t think the line is blurry at all. Evolutionary Biology is science. TE, EC, PC, ID, OEC, YEC aren’t. Each one of these are in the realm of theology (or ideology or philosophy in the case of ID) that operates under non-MN so isn’t science. It is my hope that if one understands the science better, one could adjust their own beliefs to get rid of any tension, distress, or discomfort in their own lives between the present day scientific results and their own faith beliefs.
If, in the next few days, weeks or months, I or some else posts a new scientific results that cause you to cringe instead of being in awe, well then its your biases and beliefs that need adjustment not the science.
1 Like
The assumption that “no God is allowed” isn’t science either; it’s a religious ideology. Scientific methodology cannot invoke God, but scientific investigation can cause one to infer His action.
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?
2 Likes
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?