Re: Evolutionary creationism

On 3/12/2025 8:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 13:06:43 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 3/11/2025 12:21 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 09:21:24 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/11/2025 5:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 17:20:56 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
[...]
>

They are still not abiding by
Saint Augustine's admonishment about not using the Bible to make claims
about what we can determine for ourselves about nature, so my guess is
that their efforts can still fail to represent nature accurately
depending on how consistent with the Bible that they want to be.

>
They are NOT in any way contradicting Saint Augustine's admonishment,
they are following it perfectly.
>
If you think differently then like MarkE, you haven't properly grasped
the meaning of what St Augustine meant.
>

>
They are trying to force biological evolution into conforming with their
Biblical interpretation.  As such what are they missing about biological
evolution?  Some of them are denying that natural mechanisms were
involved in some of that evolution.

>
Please give an example of that.

?
 

>
You SNIPed it out.

 There is nothing in what I snipped that shows anyone denying that
natural mechanisms were involved in evolution. On the contrary, as
quoted by you from their website, they define one of their core values
as affirming the established findings of modern science. Are you
calling them liars?

That obviously is not true.  Did you actually read what you snipped out?   What were their other core values?  They obviously have other feelings about what are not "established findings of modern science."  Not only that, but as I indicated there are somethings about evolution that have not been established because they claim to be tweekers like Behe, and their god has been tweeking things in order to make humans into his own image.

 

The example was in their description of what they
believed.  They believe that the Bible is the "inspired and
authroitative word of God" and "First, that God created all things,
including human beings in his own image.".  You have to read their web
site to learn that some of them are tweekers that claim that their god
was involved in guiding the evolution of life on earth.

 I have read their web site and I see nothing anywhere about forcing
biological evolution into conforming with their
Biblical interpretation. Feel free to point it out if I have missed
it.

You must have missed the part about tweekers, and the claims that their god evolved humans in his own image.
Ron Okimoto

 

>

>
>

That is exactly what Saint
Augustine warned against doing.
>
This is just the next stage of science denial that some of them will use
their acceptance of some of the science to cover up.

>
That is pure conjecture on your part.

>
It is what some of them are already doing.  Some have given up on the
science denial, but some are still looking for what they need to fit
their god into what has happened in nature.
>
If they had given up on the science denial that Saint Ausgustine warned
Christians about, it would not matter how biological evolution fit into
their literal interpretation of the Bible.

 Funny how you can't give even one specific example of such denial.
 

>

>

Some of them
likely have deistic notions like Denton, and do not require any designer
interference with evolution, but some of them are tweekers like Behe,
and still remain under Saint Augustine's admonishment.

>
More conjecture on your part. Unless of course you can provide
specific examples.

>
They admit to it on their web site.

 Where on their web site do they admit it?
 

Some of them are still tweekers
like Behe, and would be the same type of science denier as Behe is.

 Yet again, you can't give a single specific example.
 

In order to abide by Saint Augustine's admonishment they wouldn't need to
limit biological evolution due to their Biblical beliefs.  They claim
that their god made humans in his own image using biological evolution..

 

You do understand that there is a theological debate about what "in his
image" means, right?  So what literal belief are they supporting and
should they even be trying to support any of the interpretations?  Which
Biblical beliefs are they willing to falsify using science?

 The reason you can't give any specific examples is that you are
presenting their case upside down. They are not trying to *force* any
science into anything; to the extent that they are *forcing* anything,
they are forcing their traditional Bible interpretation into
accommodating what science tells us.
 St Augustine would undoubtedly have heartily endorsed what they are
doing.
 

>
Ron Okimoto
>

>

>
These creationists are claiming that some of the existing science is
consistent with their Biblical interpretation, but it is not consistent
with what other creationists believe.  If we rewrote the Bible today
with our current understanding of cosmology we would still be wrong
about some things, and they would have to be rewritten at some later
date.  Saint Augustine's admonishment makes it unnecessary to rewrite or
reinterpret the Bible.
>
Ron Okimoto
>

>