@GBrooks9's View On God's Engagement

You should really start sending those BioLogos folk to the conversation here. I hope you link here when appropriate. The water is nice here at Peaceful Science.

Shockingly, most have never heard of it.

You are not the first, but they are generally speaking not prone to support that view. @TedDavis is an exception, as are others. Some are down right opposed to it.

1 Like

A post was merged into an existing topic: What is Molinism?

From a theological point of view, of course he could inspire some mutations. I’m just saying we have not produced any scientific evidence that He did, and whether or not He did, God providentially governs all things.

1 Like

2 posts were merged into an existing topic: What is Molinism?

Isn’t that just the dumbest thing…

1 Like


And now we are right back to where I am a little concerned!

Professor, I have stated already, and you have recognized already, that I’m not making this a scientific claim!


If God is outside of Time, and everything is created and done and completed in a moment …
all of God’s contemplation is accomplished long before humans experience this so-called moment
when God makes his choice.

God has made his choice before Creation … not in Real Time… wondering just what to do.

Every time you say “but we have no evidence for this”, I am wondering what you are talking about.

Are you okay with this assertion from a Theological Stance?

1 Like

Then I have no problem with it. God can do whatever He wants. My main issue is with importing these theological claims into science, which you are not doing.

Yes, absolutely. If you find me repetitive in saying “but we have no evidence for this,” that is because the distinction between a scientific and theological claim were not clear to me. If you make that clear, I do not have an objection.

I think you have a perfectly reasonable position.

1 Like

My apologies for not being clear about that. It never occurred to me that anyone would ever think I that I thought science would support the idea that controls every detail about the universe (except, of course, free will events).

1 Like

It is okay. I know what you mean but others are here too. When we are not clear here it creates avoidable conflict, as you have seen. This is the core of the conflict over ID, so we can’t be ambiguous about it, or at least I can’t.

1 Like


Right! But the core of the Conflict regarding ID is not, in my view, the core of the issue about Gen.Adam (GA).

While the epistemological implications of ID are not a frivolous concern, if I were to quantify how much of your Peaceful science time has been spent on a theologically-inspired footnote, i would estimate something like 75%!

75% of your time has been hijacked by a theological question that you have already rejected (because of your scientific pursuits)… but which continues to inspire opposition against ALL your Christian work … because so many Creationists would rather argue about design than to acknowledge the central truth of your Peaceful science work:

that a real Adam/Eve can and was created through Special Creation… in the midst of a human population that God invested thousands of generations building … in order to arrive at exactly what he wanted for humanity.
Don’t make these hijackings so easy. Put them in a Scientist-to-Scientist section … so you can more frequently pursue your central focus: Special Creation and Evolution are just two folds of a single divine cloth of God’s plan!


I’m considering this. Could be good idea.


It waxes and wanes…

1 Like

The situation seems to have improved


I had always hoped that in the 5 years since my last posting above that the GAE niche would have come to thoroughly distract readers from ID topics.