Three Views of Creation I Accept As Possibile

I think using scientific terms to define theological positions lead to confusion precisely because of the nature of science. Scientific terms are defined apart from God…
Then we end up talking across each other and are forced to maintain distinctions between science and theology… While using an unweildy language whose purpose is not to talk about God…
Better speak in a language directly linked with God… and then show how scientific positions such as evolution or ID relate to theology…
For example, confessing scientists can fall under both category 2 as well as category 3 which I defined above even as they agree completely on evolution as a science. This approach will avoid confusion.

1 Like

Ashwin: I agree with you and think that your comment makes good sense. The problem is that those in the scientific community (who silo these conversations) may not agree. So, we are left to see what the others think.

It feels similar to the separation of church and state issue. Certain symbols or discussions are not allowed in certain realms. If those are the rules, so be it. We have to figure out another way around them.

To me, the issue there (and here) is that to proffer an opinion that God does not exist is a theological point and, also, cannot be expressed in this environment. If we are told that a scientific conversation cannot incorporate a reference to a higher intelligence then that same conversation cannot disprove a higher intelligence. No party can have it both ways. If the scientific conversation cannot prove God’s existence, then it cannot disprove it either. So, we have not solved the issue, but we have made it fair, because all camps are operating under the same rules.

I do not agree with the rules, but I follow them. I would rather pursue truth with no boundaries whatsoever, and let the chips fall where they may. I think that your suggestions make for a good compromise, but wonder if they would be accepted or rejected outright? I think that your use of “primary means” and “secondary means” as you have defined them will be met with disapproval, because there is an unwillingness to include your “primary means” (God) in any scientific conversation at all. @swamidass Your thoughts sir?

2 Likes

It was evolution that somewhat deistic as Charles Darwin was. He did not believe at the end of his life in a conservative philosophy of God. A God that is conservative theistic would participate actively in his creation.
Is that obvious to everyone else? George Brooks does no understand that. I would like to hear other opinions from other friends. God does not use Darwinian Evolution; on the contrary, he uses creative evolution. Creative Evolution is not mindless because it is directed by Adonay Elohim himself, i.e., that is the God of the Exodus, the God of Abraham, and the Father of Jesus. What do I have to do to make this clear to you, George? You are an educated man and surely understand what non Darwinian evolution is and also what Darwinian evolution is. Professor Alf Mapp, was an instructor at Old Dominion University. He was my father’s cousin. Just give my time to explain why I am mentioning this. On the book cover of his book on King Alfred of England it says the following:

Alf Mapp, Jr. was a professor of history, literature, and Western civilization at Old Dominion University. His writings, including The Virginia Experiment and Frock Coats and Epaulet, have been published in nine languages and ave earned him a Freedoms Foundation Honor Medal, a Pulitzer nomination and numerous American and British citations. As a journalist he cover Truman, Eisenhower and Churchill. He and (I) were direct descendants of King Alfred the Great of England. Alf is gone from this world now. What is the purpose of mentioning my cousin. The reason is simple: Charles Darwin was our cousin too from the Royal House of Wessex. I do not hate cousin Charles; however, he was really no true Christian. Let me find the page in Alf’s book. The page is 170 along George Washington and William Shakespeare. Why I am I mentioning this: I am showing that I do not hate Darwin; on the contrary, I believe his philosophy and science were wrong. You really do put me to work, George. It doesn’t matter, George. It has been a pleasure to talk with you.
I was correcting grammar just now.
@Revealed_Cosmology, @Michael-Callen

1 Like

Hi Charles: I not sure about George’s opinions, but I think that he was merely asking what you meant when you said “evolution non-Darwinism”… Not to challenge what you said or to disagree, but simply to learn what it was that you meant by that phrase.

2 Likes

I agree with you friend Michael. I like George Brooks actually. George, if I sounded rude, I wish to apologize to you, and I hope you accept it. I guess I went overboard. I really did not mean to. Please accept my apology. They are right; I went a bit overboard.

@gbrooks9

3 Likes

So, Charles, just to be clear, when you were mentioning “evolution non-Darwinism” you were referring to “non-Darwinian evolution” as per the quote above?

Again, I think that was the crux of George’s repeated questioning.

Not being educated, I would love to know your definition of non-Darwinian evolution because our definitions are so important in this arena. I do not ask this sarcastically, but rather sincerely. I’m guessing that you are referring to what others may call “God-directed evolution” as compared to “materialistic evolution?”

That’s quite a pedigree you have! I’m afraid to look at mine! :slight_smile:

1 Like

Yes, you are right, Michael. George did not deserve my tone of speech. We are all related in some way. I do respect everyone here. George, I hope after a while that we can be friends again. I am never too proud to admit I was wrong in my tone of speech.

@gbrooks9

1 Like

Charles: You are so soft-handed and warm-hearted in your conversations that I can’t imagine that anyone would be upset with you! Thanks so much for your explanations!

2 Likes

I wish to thank you, my friend

2 Likes

@Ashwin_s

I think @swamidass would agree that it is the OTHER way around.

Theology can discuss ANYTHING.

But science cannot discuss theology. That’s why Id’s attempt to get science to back up ID is doomed to fail.

@Charles_Miller

I will happily accept your apology if you can tell me whether you plan to discontinue that phrase.

I haven’t read every post… so I’m not sure what your ultimate verdict is or was.

You can even continue to use it… if you just tell me what it should mean.

1 Like

Anyone can discuss anything George. However there are ways to discuss things in a clear way. Scientific terms such as evolution are not made with God or theological considerations. Hence using these words to explain theological understandings of creation can and does lead to confusion.hence bettwr to build an independent foundation in terms of God’s action and then see what understanding best fits what theory/understanding of evolution.

1 Like

I will be glad to stop using that phrase if it disturbs you. Let’s see if I can remember it. I wish to say that I will go no further with this issue.

Evolution: Non Darwinian- God-guided evolution, Christian Theistic Evolution, Evolutionary Creation. I wish to appeal this to Dr. Joshua. I feel that I have explained this enough to George; therefore, I wish for George to be asked not to bring this subject up again. Please ask the moderators to join in the fun.:laughing: If George does not wish to accept my apology, then so be it. That is his freewill. I do not believe I need to write a Dictionary of the English Language on this. I believe I have explained this enough, George. If this was not enough, you may give it your own definition and publish your own dictionary. Make it a master peace.

@swamidass

No, Theology cannot discuss everything. Can you fix a car with theology or build a house? Pray tell George.

There was no verdict, George. You should not use legal terms if you do not have a Juris Doctor.

@Ashwin_s,

This is why God invented ADJECTIVES!

GOD-Guided Evolution is NOT the same as Scientific Evolution…and virtually everyone understands this but you.

Frankly, it is your repeated attempt to reject any descriptive phrase that would EQUAL God-Guided Evolution that makes me question your sincerity.

This is not to be interpreted as being mean or coarse…but my honest dismay as to what your intentions are if you continue to reject any attempt to make a distinction between Godless Evolution …and EVOLUTION that REQUIRES God’s engagement.

Even ID folks dont attempt to suppress discussion in that way.

@Charles_Miller,

I don’t know what you are getting all spun up about.

I will conclude that You didn’t intend to use this phrase to begin with. The subject is now closed.

And what you were intending to mean was “Non-Neo-Darwinian God-Guided Evolution”!

May the original phrase “Evolution Non-Darwinism” never be seen again.

God didn’t invent adjectives, people did. Perhaps all the way back to Homo Erectus.

Not everybody. The term evolution (no adjectives) is used for the entire study and today’s entirety of knowledge of biology.

The study of evolution must be Godless.

1 Like

@Charles_Miller

I didn’t say theology could FIX anything.

My point was that Theology has the capacity to embrace the entire Cosmos… if a holy book requires it.

This is NOT a symmetrical relationship … unless you are ID or Eddie.

This refers to Christians attempting to put God’s design within the scope of Science.

I think this is likely to fail… and more importantly, it is not an important question to answer in order to champion the idea that God uses Special Creation AND Evolution to create Earth’s living things!

1 Like

Christians (or any other theist) shouldn’t attempt to put God’s design within the scope of science, then it wouldn’t be science anymore.

1 Like