Here is just a snippet from a series of articles on Darwin and his theory over at Apologia.
Hume’s Attack on Miracles
David Hume’s (1711-1776) argument against miracles is considered by many to be the pinnacle of this line of thinking; that God does not dabble in His creation. Hume turned the notion of miracles around from being a point of evidence for the believer to being a liability.
Hume argued that as we observe the natural laws all around us, we must weigh the evidence of the natural law being broken just once, against all the instances of the natural law working just fine. Since this is the case, the evidence for that single instance of a miracle would have to be compelling indeed. The report of a miracle becomes a case of “proof against proof”. Needless to say, Hume looked into history and never found evidence of a miracle to be compelling.
********************************************
{Yahweh knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile. (Psalm 94: 11)
For it is written,
“I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1Corinthians 1: 19-20)}
********************************************
What Affect Did This Have?
Many theologians in the centuries before Darwin used logic, reason, and scientific inquiry to provide arguments for God. The logical conclusion is that if the existence of God can be argued for in this way, then so can His non-existence. If God only interacts with His creation through natural laws, why not just describe phenomena according to natural laws? Why “add” God?
In attempting to rationalize God, modernist thinkers also distanced God from His creation. Darwin started his work in this theological climate. His definition of God needed no explanation, because it was already accepted. Darwin merely pushed God further from His creation, and provided a coherent scientific framework in which to do it. How and why Darwin was able to do this will be further explored in the future articles in the series. (emphasis mine)
I encourage everyone to check out Eric Kemp’s series of articles on this subject and others.
via The Rise of Evolution: Darwin’s Modernism « Apologia.
Tags: creation, Darwinism, evolution, faith, God, naturalism
February 1st, 2009 at 11:20 am
Well, this is interesting! The suggestion here seems to be that “Darwinism” poses a threat to faith if, but only if, one is already operating within a modernist, rationalistic framework as an approach to understanding God. In the absence of that framework, neither Darwinism nor any other scientific theory poses any threat to Christianity or to any other religion.
February 1st, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Yes, the only threat here is the threat of the truth bringing light on the lie. In other words, the truth of God is a deep threat to Darwinism!
February 1st, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Well, maybe. But that’s not what I was getting at, though. What I was getting at is this:
Under what conditions — what assumptions must be in place — in order for Darwinism, or any scientific theory for that matter, to pose a threat to Christianity, or (for that matter) any religiously-grounded world-view?
Now, it seems to me that one of the conditions, or assumptions, at work here is the modernist/rationalist conception of God and our knowledge of Him. If we assume that we can arrive at some knowledge of God through “the game of science” — i.e. hypothesis-formation, testing through quantified evidence, and so on — then maybe there’s some conflict. (But even then I’m hardly convinced, as you know!)
Even so: in the absence of that assumption, what happens to the “conflict” between Darwinism and Christianity? Does a conflict even remain?
Another way of putting the point, perhaps, can be seen by thinking about what Christian theology looked like before it swallowed the poisoned pill of modern rationalism. It was Thomism, right? And Thomism has had no more problem with Darwin than it has had with Newton or Einstein, if I understand the situation correctly.
I think I’ve already made clear enough in other things I’ve said that I think there are serious problems with “the modern synthesis” version of evolution, so to a very limited extent, I’m sympathetic with certain aspects of ID. Now, whether the modern synthesis stands or falls depends on how well it holds up in light of the available evidence against competing scientific hypotheses.
But it seems to me that it’s a terrible, terrible mistake to interpret the central claims of Christianity, or of any religiously-grounded world-view, as if they are elements in a scientific hypothesis. The mistake is the mistake of taking a modernist/rationalist approach to the question of God and our knowledge of Him.
So, if you want to throw off the burdens of a modernist/rationalist approach to theology — as I think you should! — then doing so means no longer interpreting Christianity as the sort of thing that can even so much as compete with evolutionary theory. Without the burden of modernism, in other words, religion and science can be seen as apples and oranges. And the criteria we use for judging whether something is a good or bad apple are different from the criteria we use for judging whether something is a good or bad orange!
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 am
You’re right, Carl! You’re talking about “religion,” and whether Darwinism is a threat to it, and in this case, Darwinism may or may not be a threat. Don’t know, am not inclined to delve into it!
However, I was speaking of the truth of God, not “religion,” and as I said before, God’s truth poses a threat to all of man’s secular and “religious” ideas about the universe, world, life….everything!
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:31 am
Jesus said, “A tree is known by its fruit”. In some cases, religion does not produce apples, but in just as many cases, science doesn’t produce oranges.
Religion and Faith are not at all the same thing. I think this is what DB is getting at. However, I’ve found that people NOT of faith don’t understand the distinction.
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:50 am
Yes! “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen,” (Hebrews 11: 1) not religion. Religion is of man and part of his problem, while faith is of and from God, and the only solution!
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:10 am
Fair enough, I suppose — but then I wonder: shouldn’t you be as fiercely critical of all scientific theories as you are of “Darwinism”? And given this radical perspective, does it even matter to you whether Darwinism is a good scientific theory or not? Does the distinction between good and bad scientific theories even matter, since both are merely human attempts to make sense of the world around us?
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:46 am
No, not at all! Darwinism seeks to replace God with man and produce some kind of robotic, atheistic society and world where the beautiful and brilliant rule. On the other hand, true scientific theories, throughout the centuries, have only provided proof of the creator’s design and furthered man’s knowledge of God, himself and all else.
It matters to those of us who see the acceptance of this corrupt and junk theory as a Godless and dehumanizing entity. I think your last question is either a matter of blindness or naiveté. We have historical evidence from the last century (and this one as well) that “the distinction between good and bad scientific theories” does matter! Ask a Jew who has their Nazi-ID-number seared in their forearm, or wait (until that day) and ask a baby who wasn’t given the opportunity, by its own mother, to live!
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
And you’re sure that evolutionary theory cannot do this? Why? Surely not because Dawkins says so, right? After all, what makes Dawkins a better authority about the metaphysical implications of Darwinism than Gould, Miller, Conway Morris, or all the other theistic evolutionists?
Careful, now. I’m a Jew, and I lost some family (very distant, I didn’t know them) in the Holocaust.
Now, this is perhaps going to stir up a big hornet’s nest around here, but I don’t care: I’ve made very careful study of Darwin and of Darwinism, including careful study of the philosophical presuppositions and implications of Darwinism. Central to this what I’m happy to call “the continuity thesis”: the lack of discontinuity between humanity and the rest of nature. Richard Rorty, a philosopher and public intellectual, put it this way:
And I’ve made careful study of the Holocaust — in particular, I’ve done some writing on Hannah Arendt, Theodor Adorno, Emmanuel Levinas, and Giorgio Agamben, all of whom undertake careful philosophical examination of the Holocaust and of totalitarianism.
So I’m quite happy to ‘go to the mat’ in defense of this claim: that the Nazi appropriation of “Darwinism” rests on a profound and complete misunderstanding of what Darwinism does and does not presuppose and imply.
More explicitly: the totalitarian destruction of humanity does not presuppose the continuity thesis, and the appropriation of the continuity thesis is part of the ideological mystification with which totalitarianism surrounds itself.
Now, if you oppose the continuity thesis because it’s inconsistent with your understanding of the truth of God, that’s one thing. I do think that it’s intellectually lazy for you to do that, because in seeing the continuity thesis as incompatible with faith (i.e. the divine perspective), you’re assuming that Dawkins is right and that Miller is wrong — but you haven’t undertaken the work necessary to entitle yourself to that. Still, I’ll chide but I won’t object. What I will object to is the assertion that the continuity thesis is somehow tied up with the internal workings of totalitarianism.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I am not claiming that Darwin, or his theory, was the creator of Nazism or totalitarianism. The nature of man, described by the word of God, tells us that Darwin is no more responsible for the Godless nature of humanity than any other person. However, if you turn a bull loose in a china shop, then you should expect a great deal of damage!
Eugenics only added to the fire of racial hatred that burned in Hitler and the crew! This, you cannot deny! It may not have been the main cause, but it was pouring gasoline on a burning train wreck!
Carl, I could care less! I put no stock or importance in the endless wandering that intellectuals, such as yourself, take part in. I have accepted this weakness in you, so I’ll “chide but I won’t object.”;-)Dawkins, Miller, Abbot and Costello, Mutt and Jeff, again, I could care less!
We see each other as we are, Carl! I’m on one end of the spectrum and your on the other.
BTW, you seem to only jump on the “I’m a Jew” thing when it’s convenient. Do you realize that! I wonder?
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Which inclines me to ask: do you find anything of value in my postings here? Or would you be just as happy if I were to leave you alone?
February 4th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I don’t blame you for asking this, and I’m sorry if my responses have seemed insulting or angry. They’re not meant to be! You speak very straightforwardly, or so it seems, and so do I. I don’t believe in niceties and beating around the bush, on a subject, for years on end. We have communicated on the Shrink’s site, and we have never, that I can remember, agreed on any issue.
You add a dissenting or different opinion to my site, and I am not against that or, for that matter, afraid of that. In fact, I read sites all the time where everyone is on the same page, atheist and Christian sites, and I find them self-serving and boring! It’s just that we see issues so differently. I just wish there were more people joining in the conversation.
Carl, you are welcome to comment here, and I apologize that you had to ask! Just don’t expect me to respond differently than I always have, with you and everyone else! Agreed?
February 4th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I wonder if the reverse is true: Does Carl find anything of value in the posts of DB? Or more specifically, anything of value outside of a curious interest in what makes a particular creationist’s mind tick; perhaps to add support for some inane thesis he is working on?
February 4th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Good question, Mike!
I hope Carl would be honest, as I have tried to be. Carl, you’re not using me as a guinea pig for a thesis are you?
February 5th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I’m not using you as a guinea pig, DB — but I can’t promise that I won’t take advantage of what I learn here in what I write!
I post here for several reasons: (1) I find that my own ideas are more clear to me as a result of trying to express them to others; (2) I enjoy the practice of dialogue; (3) I’m interested in figuring out what drives “the creationist mindset.” (So in that respect Mike is on to something.)
Here’s my problem with “creationism”, as I understand it: I don’t see what’s wrong with theistic evolutionism from a theological perspective. And because I don’t see that, I can’t see why Darwinism poses problems for Christian faith. As I see it, the insights of Newton and Einstein and Bohr have all been accepted by Christians — so why not Darwin’s ideas, too?
Now, this makes sense to me if one accepts that Dawkins (for example) is correct in arguing that Darwinism entails atheism, or makes atheism more plausible, or something like that. But there are plenty of Darwinists who think that Dawkins is just plain wrong on that point. So I don’t see why creationists agree with Dawkins on this point, and think of him as being more honest or more sincere than are theistic evolutionists. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
The links you’ve recently been posting to Apologia are a case in point. Let’s suppose that Hunter is correct in arguing that the Victorian concept of God is part of the intellectual background to Darwin’s theory; and let’s suppose, then, that Darwin’s reasoning can be reconstructed as follows:
1) Given the Victorian concept of God, and treating this concept as a scientific hypothesis, we would expect certain observations.
2) These observations do not obtain.
3) On the contrary, the observations we do have are more consistent with the hypothesis of natural selection acting on unplanned variation.
4) Therefore, God does not exist.
I am in complete agreement with you, Cornelius Hunter, and Eric Kemp that this argument at best invalidates the Victorian concept of God, and in no way so much as touches on other concepts of God. (Whether those other concepts are more grounded in Scripture and/or more true is not an issue I’ll weigh in on!)
So, what follows from this? It seems to me that as a result, we ought to say that Darwin’s theory has no bearing at all on the question of whether God exists, what God is like, what He expects of us, what sort of relationship we ought to have with Him, and so on. But if that is the correct inference, then there’s no problem with asserting that Darwinism is perfectly compatible with faith. Hence there’s no objection to be made to theistic evolution. And yet there seems to be, from a creationist perspective! So I don’t get it, still!
In sum: Hunter and Kemp, if they are right on this point, actually undermine the creationist objections to theistic evolution!
I’ll add one more thought: the theological objections to evolution do make sense to me if one thinks that Christ’s victory over death is nonsense if death and suffering existed in the world prior to the emergence of humanity. It makes sense to me how someone could begin from that position and then conclude that evolution, along with an old earth, must be ruled out. But I don’t know if this is where you’re coming from or not, DB.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I do the same thing, so I can’t complain about that.
Agreed! Darwin’s theory, in reality, has no bearing on the question of God’s existence, especially for those of us who don’t hold to the new “Victorian,” or liberal-new age version of God. Unfortunately, many do hold to this type of false gospel and foster a version of God who, according to the bible, doesn’t exist. The spirit, through the word, warns of such things happening:
AND THIS,
(One of many “myths” for me is evolution!)
I understand that you can’t accept my nonacceptance of theistic evolution, but I cannot, and not just because of my faith. Evolution, the Big Bang and all else ring untrue with me. Over the years, the more I have read and looked into them the more I have become convinced that they’re wrong. “You will know the tree by the fruit it bears…” eugenics sprang from evolution and I know the fruit it has produced, as you already know from my posts. Also, I can’t understand why my child or anyones else’s should have this “theory” shoved down their throats, while the weaknesses, which are too many to count, are never mentioned in a science classroom. We used to call this type of teaching, in educational circles, and before the Godless left took control, educational indoctrination! I don’t want religion taught in public schools for the same reason, but I don’t want our children’s faith destroyed by the likes of Dawkins either. We need to keep atheistic beliefs out of schools also, which I believe you would agree with?
On your last question, there was turmoil and suffering in the heavens, which, I believe, we have been created to resolve. So, there may not have been human suffering but there was suffering of some kind happening before this age began.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
That’s a biggie Carl! What to make of the teachings of Paul? How did Paul (of the Pharisee, mainstream sect) interpret Genesis? It seems to me that the Jews of that time interpreted scripture quite literally. The rich tradition of rabbinic commentary (the talmud and midrash) came more into use later, and is now used just as much as the Torah itself in Jewish education, as far as I understand. I believe most Jews today interpret Genesis as an allegory. (I could be wrong about all this though!) So, what to make of Paul’s teachings of ’sin and death entering with Adam, and being conquered with Christ?” Paul was writing to Jewish Christians who would get the meaning. (I’m not making an argument here – just an observation).
But I don’t at all see how an old-earth view could be ruled out just because one rejects evolution? I think you are very mistaken there. I have my own very specific ideas about on this, but it would take too much time to write them here. I have objections to young earth creationism, but they are mostly theological objections. I’ve not really looked into the science behind it.
Anyway, yes, I do believe Christ has conquered death!
This is what I like to say to non-believers:
God sent his own beloved son to die on the cross so that he could ressurect him to eternal life. How else could we have assurance that there is indeed eternal life, lest a man rise from the dead? And how else could we have assurance that God knows our pain, and understands the suffering we endure because of the evil in our world, lest God himself incarnate his spirit as a son of man and live among us?
So, *believe* that you have eternal life, and be grateful, and live with love and thanksgiving in your heart. Because there is no eternal death. Because every word that you say, and action that you take, and all the pain that you feel is all known to the God who gives eternal life. That is the gospel of Jesus Christ. So live accordingly, by following the way Jesus taught when he lived among us. There are no guarantees of a happy life. In fact, quite the opposite is usually the case for Christians. But there is the promise of eternal life, and the hope in that promise, and the peace that it brings. Remember, God didn’t send an angel to take his own son off the cross, saying that he has ’suffered enough’. No, God did something far better. He allowed Jesus to suffer and die, to be rejected by the world, in order that the ultimate promise of eternal life could be revealed in his resurrection.
So, everytime you do something wrong (like break one of those commandments, as we all do), it’s ok. God has forgiven you. You have his promise. You will not go to the grave. So, understand your sin is forgiven, and live with that grace in your heart. And try to do better so as to show appreciation for the wonderful gift God has freely given. Because your deeds do have meaning outside of this temporal existence. So, be unburdened, and share that good news with others. Believe that Jesus was resurrected. Look into it yourself and read the new testament with an open heart and hungry mind, and put aside your pre-conceived notions based on any Christian evangelizing you have been exposed to (sometimes for worse rather than better, I admit). That’s where faith comes from. Find what the ressurrection means to you, and live out that meaning in your own life.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:09 am
And Christ already paid the penalty for those actions (propitiation) on the cross! No hell, no damnation, as the false prophets put forth, just the “abundant life,” which is not free of pain and suffering or some worldly utopia, that Jesus said He came to give us. “God works all things to the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.”
And know that you can only “try to do better” through the leading and help of the Rhema (Spirit) of God who was sent to help us, as Jesus, the Christ, prophesied!
Thanks, Mike!
Carl, we say this to you!
February 6th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Carl,
A friend sent me an article this morning and I think it explains where I;m coming from on the subject of Darwin, yec and oec and all other stuff. God, is sovereign!
http://blogs.answersingenesis......-creation/
February 6th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
I find it enormously helpful to have the issue framed in terms of conflicts over authority — thank you!
In this regard, it’s important to notice a few things about Galileo’s conflict with the Church.Galileo got into trouble with the Church, not because he advanced heliocentrism as a convenient model, but because he asserted that heliocentrism is true. And that, since it is true, the sun could not have stopped in mid-day as depicted in the Book of Joshua during the battle for Jericho. He thus undermined the authority of the Church to determine which parts of Scripture are to be read allegorically and which parts are to be read literally.
But now the genie of modernity is out of the lantern, I don’t see any way it can be put back. We — all of us — are in the position of having to determine for ourselves, using our fallible human reason, which parts of Scripture are authoritative for us, and which parts are not — which parts to read allegorically, and which parts to read literally. I simply don’t think we have any alternative but to do that.
For example, the Old Testament clearly indicates a finite world in which the inhabitable parts of the earth lie in between “the lower waters” and “the upper waters.” (This is why the Flood was an un-making of the world!) Once we accept a world in which the universe is infinite, that space is largely a vacuum, and that it is possible to travel to the Moon and even perhaps to other planets, then we’ve left the Biblical cosmology behind. And then the Biblical cosmology must be interpreted allegorically. Let me make this more explicit: if the Biblical cosmology were literally true, then our communications satellites could not work.
But here’s the problem, now! Once we say, “well, of course communications satellites work, that part of the Bible is not intended to be taken literally!” — then you’re right back in the fundamental problematic of modernity, leaving it to fallible human reason to decide which parts of Scripture are necessary for the divine message, and which parts of Scripture are indications of Bronze Age science and technology.
In other words, I think that creationists are in exactly the same predicament — the predicament of modernity itself — as are all the “liberal Christians” they criticize.
February 6th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Carl, do you think this is the first time any unbeliever has ever brought up these issues to me? Please!
The one thing you miss, because you aren’t equipped to comprehend it, is God is sovereign and God can do as He pleases with us, the earth, universe, what we call natural laws etc, and we can either have faith in His sovereignty or we can believe as you do.
I find it comical that you can’t get that! Galileo, was speaking of things he understood as a mere man, but the sun stopping in the sky can not be explained by mere man, since mere man is so much more limited in what he knows and understands than he even can begin to comprehend that he is.
See Carl, I believe that God, through His Son, Jesus (the Logos) spoke everything into existence that exists. You’re amazed because you can comprehend man made theories that barely begin to scratch the surface of God’s knowledge, and, with this minute knowledge, you are arrogant enough to believe that there is no God. I find this much harder to comprehend than that God stopped the sun in the sky or flooded the earth.
You said,
Carl, it’s not me, or Mike, or Shrink, or Kliska, or Mynym who are in a “same” or any kind of predicament, it is you, unfortunately. This kind of tossing the ball back into someone’s court, as you so often like to do, doesn’t serve you well, or at least not with me. I don’t buy it, Carl. We’re not the ones seeking your writing out, you, for whatever reason, are the one seeking something!
I would encourage you to stop chasing after shadows and seek to find what you do truly believe, because, if someone asked me, I couldn’t honestly tell them what you believe. That’s not a good way to go through life, Carl! Been there, done that! Bad Stuff can happen!
February 6th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I think the issue is more complicated than that. Perhaps it WAS meant to be taken literally? Perhaps the writer literally meant it, and the reader understood it that way. Then what? If it’s not meant as allegory, should we try to find one? What was the writer’s intention? Was he just making a statement out of ignorance, or was he trying to convey some deep meaning via limited knowledge he believed was true? Depends on one’s theological leaning.
The story of Jonah is a good example. The Jews canonized this book as scripture, so obviously it was seen as revealing a spiritual truth. But did they take it literally? What about Jesus’ referring to the sign of Jonah in the Gospels? Does that mean he took it literally? Or, what of Adam and Eve? Did Jesus think that story literal? He is quoted as saying ‘From the beginning God made them male and female”. Does that tell us one way or the other? Depends on one’s Christological leaning.
In your Jericho example, one could reply that today we still refer to the ’sun crossing the sky’, even though we know the sun doesn’t move. For the sun to stand still (or go back down), the earth would have to stop (and reverse) its orbit. So, a creationist might go looking for evidence of that in the geological record. Is there anything wrong with that? What about looking for Egyptian soldier bones under the bed of the Red Sea? Is any more or less laughable than predicting where a hypothetical transitional fossil may be found?
So, believe it or not Carl, I agree with you. It’s not only up to the individual to decide what is allegorical, but also – how important it really is to make that decision. For some, that’s the whole ball of wax. Which is why sites like Answers in Genesis are so fervent in their beliefs, as are atheistic sites on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. Both have made the decision that deciding upon what is literal vs. allegorical is very important.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Yes, Mike, at some point in our lives we have to make a stand on what we truly believe. Here’s a quote that makes this point:
We either believe God is sovereign and what He has given us (the word) is true or we don’t. There’s no in between, gray area! Thus, accordingly, a self pronounced theistic evolutionist is either an unbeliever or in a state of apostasy. Oh yes, we can be uncertain of scriptural issues, and we are, but we rely on God and His spirit to lead us into all truth.
February 6th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
I should clarify a bit: I’m perfectly content to make a stand on the historical, literal resurrection of Christ. To me that’s the starting point. That’s my world-view, as I’ve written before. But as for the Hebrew bible, I’m not sure how important it really is to make a literal vs metaphorical decision about the creation narratives (and prophecies too, which is a whole other thing). That’s difficult stuff. Even if we take the Torah as God-authored, it’s no less difficult to determine. But in many cases, the scriptures yield the same spiritual truth, interpreted either way. For instance, we can understand from the bible that there is an Ultimate Creator, whether we read the scriptures metaphorically or literally. But as you well pointed out, our grappling with these issues has no bearing on God’s existence or his love for us (2 things I know for sure, directly from the resurrection).
February 7th, 2009 at 12:06 am
It’s not that I claim to know that God does not exist; it’s that the belief in God is utterly alien to me. (Not false, and not repugnant, but alien.) By which I mean:
I cannot imagine how I might live what I take to be recognizable to me in my present state as being ‘my life’ in a way that is consistent with the belief that “God is sovereign and God can do as He pleases with us, the earth, universe, what we call natural laws etc, and we can . . . have faith in His sovereignty.”
Hence my “faitheism.”
Neither my intellectual integrity, nor my spiritual hygiene, nor the quality of my relationships with others, depend on having an obsession with determining the character of “what I truly believe”. I much prefer the attitude of Michel Foucault:
February 7th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Carl proclaimed,
And what else is new?
February 7th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Mike said,
I’m not either! But I do know that holding to man’s false version of creation (evolution etc) is ultimately denying God. That doesn’t mean Christ’s sacrifice doesn’t cover this wrong thinking, it most certainly does, but we shouldn’t delude ourselves, as “believers,” by reshaping God in our image and then claiming to know Him and His Son.
February 7th, 2009 at 9:38 am
And how do you know this?
I mean, let’s put it terms of authority, right? Just where does the authority of fallible science conflict with the authority of Scripture?
February 7th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Carl,
I should have said for the believer, which you are not! So, when you’re a believer, then come back and ask this question. Then, I will be willing to discuss it.
Why? Because what we’re discussing here is faith in God, and you have no such faith. Therefore, you have no way to discern this truth (no Spirit of God)! I refer you to this scripture:
Paul said,
In fact, this my answer to your question, Carl!
February 7th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
In that case, DB, you and I have nothing more to discuss, for the time being.