Continuing the discussion from [Tim Keller is not an Evolutionary Creationist]

They are totally different things… and science doesn’t make any observations about creation. It makes observations about “nature” and by ignoring God’s role as creator, it ends up inadvertently ascribing nature + accidents with the ability to create itself.
You have accepted that Science does not acknowledge creation. So why do you continue to use the term “natural creation”?

It was a typo… I wrote work instead of word.

Since both of us agree that we get theology from God’s word. Why do you refer to a second “book” ?

I am having trouble reconciling this statement with this other statement.

This makes no sense at all. You are claiming that the natural creation and nature are two different things? They are the same thing. It’s just that Christians refer to “the natural creation”, and scientists refer to “nature”.

Because I am a Christian, and I believe nature is the creation of God. This isn’t rocket science.

Because God wrote it. Again, if you had read the article to which I linked, you would know this.

I can’t help your problems with logic. There is no contradiction whatsoever between those two statements. The fact that my opinion on a scientific matter is irrelevant, does not mean I am incapable of understanding a scientific hypothesis.

Perhaps when you understand how you can fail to realise that humans are primates, you’ll understand why your comprehension of basic logic repeatedly demonstrates flaws.

1 Like

Then maybe you can explain why your opinion would be irrelevant if you disagreed with a conclusion of main stream science.

No, I am pointing out that the scientific description of nature is different from the christian distinction between creator and creation.
Science recognises no such distinction and often ends up crediting nature/natural law for God’s work.

“Nature” is not a written or spoken revelation.
This is a basic distinction you should be able to recognise.

1 Like

Because I have no scientific knowledge or education which would make my comment relevant. It’s like you commenting on evolution, or on primates. You just don’t know enough for your comments to be relevant. Most of the time you’re just writing word salad and cargo cult science.

By the same token, scientists claiming God doesn’t exist, are irrelevant when speaking from the point of view of science. It’s just not their business.

So what?

So what that science doesn’t make any such distinction? And are you one of the people who denies natural law? I believe God instituted natural law.

Wow, this is really next level. Of course it’s not a written or spoken revelation using literal words, but yes it is totally a written or spoken revelation. The Bible even says this.

Psalm 19:
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the sky displays his handiwork.
2 Day after day it speaks out;
night after night it reveals his greatness.
3 There is no actual speech or word,
nor is its voice literally heard.
4 Yet its voice echoes throughout the earth;
its words carry to the distant horizon.
In the sky he has pitched a tent for the sun.

That was an epic footshot. You literally contradicted the Bible. It’s like you didn’t even know this verse existed.

Since you refuse to read the article, I’ll point out to you that many Christian commentators have followed this concept of the two books. Here are a handful.

  1. Basil of Caesarea.

Some people in order to discover God, read a book. But there is a great book: the very appearance of created things. Look above and below, note, read. God whom you want to discover, did not make the letters with ink; he put in front of your eyes the very things that he made. Can you ask for a louder voice than that?

  1. Maximus the Confessor.

The natural law, as if it were a book, holds and sustains the harmony of the whole of the universe. Material bodies are like the book’s characters and syllables; they are like the first basic elements nearer to us, but allow only a partial knowledge.

  1. Hugh of St. Victor.

For this whole visible world is a book written by the finger of God, that is, created by divine power; and the individual creatures are as figures in it, not derived by human will but instituted by divine authority to show forth the wisdom of the invisible things of God.

  1. Bonaventura.

When human beings fell because of sin, they lost such who could bring all things back to God. Thus this book, that is the world, seemed dead and destroyed.

  1. Bernard of Clairvaux.

According to the Apostle, ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made, as if this sensible world were a public book, in which everyone is able to read God’s wisdom.

  1. John Abbot of Ford.

there is the book of creatures, the book of Scripture and the book of Grace…

  1. Raymond of Sebond.

Every creature is nothing but a word, written by God’s finger; like many different words, all these creatures compose one book which is called the book of creatures. This book includes the human being, who is the most important word contained therein.

  1. Paracelsus.

Let the others read their compendiums, while we study in the great picture book which God has opened for us outdoors.

  1. Johannes Kepler.

Since we astronomers are Priests of the Most High God with respect to the book of nature, it behooves us that we do not aim at the glory of our own spirit, but above everything else at the glory of God.

  1. Thomas Browne.

Our Saviour says, “Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the the power of God ;”* thus laying before us two books to study, if we will be secured from error ; viz., the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God, and the creation, which expresses his power;

All of these quotations are from the article you refused to read.

3 Likes

Fair enough.

Do you believe that science can explain the diversity of life from a single cell through known identified mechanisms?

Eventually, sure. Why not? God wrote a record of it in the earth, and that record can be read by scientists, just like they read the geological record God left.

1 Like

Eventually is certainly a possibility.

Can I take your statement as meaning that now the explanation is incomplete?

According to you what is natural law?

This is clarified in Romans 1-
19 because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them.
20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse.
21 Because knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened.

The first point is that God’s role as creator is revealed to everyone inherently. If this knowledge is “written” anywhere, it’s in the human conscience.
You yourself admit, “book of nature” declares God’s glory and his invisible attributes, how can science be a commentary on this book if it doesn’t even acknowledge God’s existence?

Of course. But so what? It is sufficiently complete to conclude that evolution is a fact, and that the modern evolutionary synthesis is a reliable scientific mode of that fact.

Yes, and Paul says they have been revealed through the things that are made. That is, through the natural creation. So he’s saying exactly the same as Psalm 19. So do you now agree that the natural creation is a book of God’s work, which speaks out and can be read? Yes, no, or something else?

I have explained this to you before several times, and linked you to an article which explains it. I can’t help you if you fail to read my words and the article.

1 Like

What exactly do you mean when you say evolution is a fact? Usually facts come in smaller pieces we call data.

Hypothesis or theory is an accumulation of facts resulting a tentative conclusion.

The revelation from nature is communicated by God to all people. It’s result of the work of God’s Spirit in the human heart and the influence of the image of God in man, i.e the human conscience. If it’s written anywhere, it is on the human heart.

A commentary on the book of creation must declare Gods glory in creation. Science can never do this and hence it is in now way a commentary on the witness of creation.
Yes or no?

[quote=“colewd, post:52, topic:5934”]What exactly do you mean when you say evolution is a fact? Usually facts come in smaller pieces we call data.

Hypothesis or theory is an accumulation of facts resulting a tentative conclusion.
[/quote]

So you don’t understand how evolution is both a fact and a theory. Wow. You’re not even ready to start having conversations on evolution.

Ok well I know it’s fun to just make things up but that’s not what the Bible says; Psalm 19 and Romans 1 say it’s written in the natural creation.

No. Why not just accept the fact that you had no clue about this entire discussion from when you first entered it?

1 Like

I have heard this explained. Can you give me your version. Is the fact of evolution merely change over time as evidenced in the fossil record?

Is the theory explaining how this happened?

Isn’t that your interpretation… it’s interesting how you have opted for a totally literal interpretation of the poetic genre here…

The bible talks about God writing stuff in the hearts/conscience of human beings and the written word. There is no reason to look for actual words in the sky!

Then please go and read it again.

No. It’s the interpretation not only of a long list of historical Christian exegetes, but also of modern scholarship.

No. In this psalm, the psalm itself differentiates between literal and non-literal. It says explicitly that this isn’t a literal voice, or a literal word, and I agree it isn’t a literal voice, or a literal word. However, it uses this metaphor, exactly as I have used it. That’s because this passage is exactly where the metaphor came from in the first place.

No one is looking for actual words in the sky.

1 Like

Think about it. The psalm was written long back. Before modern science started. Unless you are claiming that this is some kind of prophecy, the witness of nature regarding God’s glory has been available to all people irrespective of their scientific insight.
This is a witness written in the human heart. Human beings equate creation with the creator and see the creators glory naturally.

This has nothing to do with Science.

As to the literal voice… the verse is not talking about it. This is what verse 3 says-

3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

It refers to the universal nature of this revelation from creation.

4 Their voice has gone out through all the earth, their words to the end of the world.

This refers to the geographic extent of this witness.
Equating the witness of creation to science which says nothing about God is just twisting the verses out of context.

You need to revisit you theology here.

From the university of Indiana.

Technically, evolution, in its totality, should not be called a fact; it does not quite match the generally accepted definition of a scientific fact.

So one of our top universities disagrees with you that evolution is a fact.

1 Like

Yeah I have, thanks.

Me and 1,700 years of Christian thought, including modern scholarship. Yeah, maybe not.

Did you really think I wouldn’t look it up? You’re completely misrepresenting it. The author says exactly what I have already told you, that evolution is both a fact and a theory. The actual title of the article is “Evolution as Fact AND Theory”.

Look at what it says.

All of this critical evidence - those facts - all strongly point to evolution being a reality that makes sense of those facts. The evidence is now so compelling, with no evidence against it, that scientists treat evolution as a reality. When speaking to the general public, and even to other scientists, scientists may at times call evolution a fact (rather than a theory), invoking the broader, non-scientific use of “fact” that recognizes the well supported process of evolution, and because the layman’s perception of “theory” as just an idea or hunch does not match that high level of scientific confidence based on the overwhelming evidence of evolution.

1 Like