Greg, I still don’t understand how the Theory of Evolution is in conflict with the existence of God. I didn’t use your word, evolutionism, because I’m still not entirely sure what it is. It sounds like a propaganda term which tries to recast a scientific theory as some kind of cult. Perhaps some people do indeed misconstrue and misapply evolutionary biology concepts to topics entirely outside of biological science but it is an obvious logic fallacy to use that as a tactic to try and taint the scientific theory. That ruse would be nothing but the Argument from Negative Associations fallacy.
Why do you treat nature and that which is naturalistic as if a negative or great evil? The Bible says that God created nature and thereby all that is “naturalistic.” God called it very good. You appear to be implying that it is very bad.
Of course the Theory of Evolution is “naturalistic” because it is a set of explanations for what we observe in God’s created natural world, specifically the biological world. Once again you appear to be hopelessly confusing philosophical materialism/naturalism (as in the views of some atheists, for example) with the methodological naturalism of science—the latter of which is simply an approach that assumes that the universe can be better understood by collecting data and looking for patterns which help us understand the underlying processes which bring about changes.
Greg, you appear to be repeating blind slogans which have nothing but detachment from both science and Biblical theology.
You misunderstand me (mainly bc im trying to keep my replies short which is hard to do) what i mean is that if the true God exists which i know is the God defined by Scripture which gives principles, facts, histories about Him and His actions, then evolution as per mainstream is completely and totally out bc it goes against. To knowingly run in a way contrary to Scripture is to literally sin against God. Some may say, “Well, this is only a science argument which is unimportant.” I disagree. This is a “im choosing to redefine God argument.” If God is not part of nature which he is not according to scripture and God says He created “kinds” in short order, and another comes along and suggests that it okay to partially agree w the tenets from mainstream naturalism on how nature did the creating, yet still try to call it of God, they not only sin against God but carve a cavern of total confusion on too many levels to mention now, for the remaining Christian theology.
You say that the acceptance of evolution does not preclude the existence of God to you. Guess what, i know God created kinds which i believe satan himself knows. And he knows god exists…so for satan, he accepts creationism and the existence of God although he is attempting to deceive the masses away from both. So to say one knows about God that runs contrary to what is true about Him according to His statementsi s to buy a half lie from satan that points to a different God. Yikes. I have 3 fingers pointing back at me and by the grace of God we go forth. This sounds harsh, but i have been working this argument towards you guys whom i care for for sooo long and im trying to get this to stick.
For my family and i, we chose to come into relationship w God by repenting of all knowing items that run contrary to Him, receiving forgivemess from those past errors and rejoicing in awe, reverence and wonder of the only good God who created mankind as his image bearers. I would imagine that scientists are bent towards figuring things out. The Bible tells us that God is beyond us, so where one thinks science runs contrary to what is plainly written in the attempt to “figure things out”, then i would encourage any especially Christian scientist to chalk it up as a mystery to be asked about in heaven while in the meantime just placing faith in what is said in the Bible for our our edification. Hey-i believe that the earth looks old in the eyes of science. I also believe that according to science mass energy cannot be created, that people dead for more than a day cant come back to life, and that wine cannot be literally turned to wine in a matter of seconds. The God who can do this stuff and stuff in my life that blows my socks off and which rocked my world, then the universe to him is like a little dirt under the fingernails of a person doing some gardening. If God transcends nature which science depends upon, then science should not be interpreting Scripture in the things it means to say.
The shear awesomeness of such a God is the reason why religiousity of earning a god or gods sounds fabricated. Thats almost all religions except Christianity. But with the true God, it is different: He came down to us in the Person of His Son to reconcile us to Him because He loves us. There is no room in man to boast and there is no room in man to say what runs contrary to God at His word.
The man in the article says he was convinced to deny evolution by reading Steven Meyer’s book “Darwin’s Doubt.”
That tells you all you need to know about his alleged “intellectual honesty.” Does he explain how he determined whether the information given in that book was accurate? No.
YECism also belittles the import of Psalm 8:4, not only because of the vastness of the size of the universe, but also because of the vastness of its antiquity.
Personally, I would not question Gelernter’s “intellectual honesty”. One can be wrong without being dishonest. His main problem is that his knowledge/understanding of evolution is quite poor. I guess that’s a Dunning-Kruger problem when he is outside his main area. He overestimates his own knowledge.
Yes, a lack of information. But also a poor methodology. If you expose yourself to a presentation from one side but do not give the other side a chance to rebut, you will often reach dubious conclusions.
Hi Dr. Mercer. This whole discussion about the science of our existence is like a loaded gun with the safety off. Give just a soundbite then words can be misunderstood and twisted then used to disparage. This comment of mine here was in response to one who misunderstood bc my reply had no body.
Hope you are having a good week. I just learned that child number 2 passed her drivers temps exam now i get to loose more hair w nerves on end over their safety. Good one. Greg
I may only be a simple man, but i read the entirety of Ps 8 twice and have not the slightest idea where you get this idea from. God was communicating a principle of His glory through perspectives of men. David who wrote this was a shepherd who would spend nights outside keeping watch over his flock. He would have no idea about any age or size of the universe by looking at the stars and moon alone. Yet-and i can relate to this- there is something about the night sky that just shouts out about the glory of the God who made it!
If you are interested to learn about the suggested age of the universe per Scripture, read the historical references such as in God creating and geneologies going back to that creation history in Genesis.
As far as the size of the universe, i think one could conclude from the night skies and their roation about a seeming large body of land that one would experience that the universe is rather large. The degree of its size i would expect no one to really understand completely. What this has to do with upsetting a yec position is nonsense though. Maybe explain better.
God did reveal to one of His prophets (David or Solomon maybe) about the heavens “stretching” which could be asociated to our universe expanding in its size. It is so bewildering to think about how vast the universe really is. Mind blowing. And to God, it is a speck within a dimension He is not even within.
Conciseness does not mean “just a soundbite.” Your replies ramble all over the place and rarely address the comment to which you are allegedly replying.
That is your opinion and well taken. But you have to admit that solving the differences of opinion about our existence between those of us who appreciate science which measures the natural and the existence of God who is wholly supernatural can get very hairy in a hurry. Placing focus towards God, then you get accused of not appreciating science. Too much science then one is godless. But the balance can be found in Scripture.
And i would challenge you to observe the way Jesus addressed those around him where He seemed to skirt the issue at hand. The rich young ruler (Lk 18) who wanted to know how he might gain eternal life. Jesus answered, follow the commandments. The ruler said that he did these, but then out of right field, Jesus tells the man to sell all he has and give it all away and follow Jesus. Was Jesus rambling and inappropriately addressing the issue at hand? If you are a believer like me then you know this not to be true. Jesus was hitting the nail on the head and addressing the problem at its roots in this self righteous young ruler. The ruler might think that this is a bad answer and not addressing the issue bc it was not what he wanted to hear. But Jesus knew better.
And of course, Jesus’s answer was not indicative that we are capable of earning salvation. He was instead proving the opposite that we are incapable and that we must humbly repent of worship of all the trinkets of stuff and wrong behavior for the true treasure of forgiveness and the One who gives it to be known. The ruler wanted to know what he must do. Jesus plan was for us to instead confess our inability to do anything capable of achieving Gods favor and to instead by faith trust what is done for us that would be for this ruler at the time and now for us accomplished on the cross.
In this debate of scientific conclusions vs myth some want to prove that the intelligence exerted within science always has the upper hand over the seeming foolishness in the face of the myth. I believe that Jesus, in the personal knowledge of the existence of an omnipotent supernatural God whom He was part would answer to such arrogance in man with the same jarring approach that seemed out of right field to the rich young ruler…all ultimately pointed towards the truth of all truths surrounding the gospel of the cross through which man has no room to boast.
Sorry to ramble. Congrats on your first fourteener.
Congrats on your first fourteener.