Re: Evolutionary creationism

On 3/17/2025 8:31 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 08:42:49 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
 

On 3/15/2025 11:06 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 07:02:16 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/14/2025 5:50 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 14:28:44 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/14/2025 12:06 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 08:04:06 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/14/2025 3:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 10:02:21 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/13/2025 8:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:43:35 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

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?

>
>
Here is exactly what you posted from their site earlier::
>
====================================
>
QUOTE:
Evolutionary Creation (EC) is a Christian position on origins. It
takes
the Bible seriously as the inspired and authoritative word of God, and
it takes science seriously as a way of understanding the world God has
made. EC includes two basic ideas. First, that God created all things,
including human beings in his own image. Second, that evolution is the
best scientific explanation we currently have for the diversity and
similarities of all life on Earth.
END QUOTE:
>
QUOTE:
The Identity of BioLogos
Core Values
Christ-centered Faith - We embrace the historical Christian faith,
upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible.
>
Rigorous Science - We affirm the established findings of modern
science,
celebrating the wonders of God's creation.
>
Gracious Dialogue - We strive for humble and thoughtful dialogue with
those who hold other views, speaking the truth in love.
END QUOTE:
>
===============================================
>
Where in that are they are denying that natural mechanisms were
involved in some of that evolution?

>
They are like Behe and claiming that their god is needed to do a
specific thing that they claim the Bible tells them so.
>
What do you not get?  The reasoning is no different from Behe claiming
that some god is needed to create the flagellum.
>
>

>

They obviously have other feelings
about what are not "established findings of modern science."

>
So what does it matter what they think about things outside of
science, how is that contradicting science?

>
They are claiming that their understanding of science can be made to
conform to their literal interpretations of the Bible.  It is the same
claim that the ID perps make except they agree that biological evolution
is a fact of nature.  Some of them still think like Behe.
>

>

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.

>
I'm still waiting for an example of those tweekers. And why do you
keep bringing Behe into it? He has nothing to do with Biologos or they
with him. They actually have a lengthy article about his "Darwin's
Black Box" book where they go through his arguments one by one and
show how they don't stand up.

>
How do you expect god to have made man in his own image without
tweeking?  They likely even differ in what they think image means.
>
>

>
https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-can-evolution-account-for-the-complexity-of-life-on-earth-today
>
>
>

>

>
>

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,

>
It's a big site and I can't find anything about tweekers. Please quote
what they actually say or at least point me to the actual part of the
site where they say it.

>
     From the link that I originally put up:
>
https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-is-biologos-different-from-evolutionism-intelligent-design-and-creationism
>
QUOTE:
BioLogos believes that science is limited to explaining the natural
world, and that supernatural events like miracles are part of reality too.
END QUOTE:
>
>
https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-evolutionary-creation
>
This comes after the quote about evolutionary creationism that I
originally put up.
>
QUOTE:
We believe that God acts purposefully in creation, just as he does in
our lives, and that he continues to actively uphold and sustain creation.
END QUOTE:
>
Tweekers acting purposefully in creation that they include life as part
of the creation.  The reason to believe exIDiots also believe that their
god is still working on the creation.
>
Ron Okimoto
>

>

and the claims that their
god evolved humans in his own image.

>
How does that contradict science?

>
They do not have to contradict science, just make the same claims about
limits of natural processes that Behe does about the flagellum.  Like
these guys Behe understands that evolution is a fact of nature, but that
doesn't stop him from his science denial attempts.

>
>
You claimed that they trying to force biological evolution into
conforming with their Biblical interpretation but can't produce a
single example of that.

>
Why lie about something like that when you can just go up this post and
see the examples quoted out of the original links that I put up?
Wanting to live in denial is no excuse for lying.  Made in his own image
is a Biblical interpretation, and they claim that biological evolution
was used to do that.  It is no different from Behe claiming that his god
was responsible for creating the flagellum in an evolutionary context.
There is no evidence that some god used evolution to do any such thing.
They have no other means than Beheian science denial to support any god
involvement in the evolution of humans in any specific way.  There is no
scientific evidence that humans evolved to be what they are due to the
influence of some god.  If they believe that there is, they are in the
same category of science denial as Behe.  What do the other quotes tell
you about their adherence with literal Biblical interpretations.  Behe
lies about why he puts up his denial, but these guys say straight out
that they believe what they believe because the Bible tells them so.

>
You still can't give even a single example of the things you have
accused them of. QED

>
Why do you insist on continuing to lie.  The examples were given and are
still in this post.  I took the quotes right out of the links that I
gave to start this thread.

>
>
You are the one who is telling lies, there are no examples in what you
quoted. You could simply prove me wrong by requoting the examples but
you cannot because they do not exist. Beats me why you continue to
make an idiot of yourself by claiming something exists when it doesn't
and people can see that.

>
You should not keep lying.  You ignored the material that I quoted.  You
didn't have to find it, just confirm that those quotes came from the
material that you were lying about.
>
Just go back up the post and lie where the quotes were put up.  You
could not do that before, and you likely can't do it now because you
can't face how you have been lying.  Why would I have to requote what
you know that you are lying about, and the quotes still exist in this post?

>
You can't requote it because there is nothing there denying that
natural mechanisms were involved in evolution or that they support
tweaking.

>
Why keep lying by making this claim when the quotes were already put up
and you could not deal with them when they were posted?
>
REPOST from above in this post:
You reposted these, so you know what they are claiming.
>
QUOTE:
Evolutionary Creation (EC) is a Christian position on origins. It
takes
the Bible seriously as the inspired and authoritative word of God, and
it takes science seriously as a way of understanding the world God has
made. EC includes two basic ideas. First, that God created all things,
including human beings in his own image. Second, that evolution is the
best scientific explanation we currently have for the diversity and
similarities of all life on Earth.
END QUOTE:
>
QUOTE:
The Identity of BioLogos
Core Values
Christ-centered Faith - We embrace the historical Christian faith,
upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible.
>
Rigorous Science - We affirm the established findings of modern
science,
celebrating the wonders of God's creation.
>
Gracious Dialogue - We strive for humble and thoughtful dialogue with
those who hold other views, speaking the truth in love.
END QUOTE:
END REPOST:
>
These guys are the same type of Biblical literalists that they have
among the ID perps.
>
REPOST:
 From the link that I originally put up:
>
https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-is-biologos-different-from-evolutionism-intelligent-design-and-creationism
>
QUOTE:
BioLogos believes that science is limited to explaining the natural
world, and that supernatural events like miracles are part of reality too.
END QUOTE:

 Nothing there denying that natural mechanisms were involved in
evolution. Only your biased imagination could turn "evolution is the
best scientific explanation we currently have for the diversity and
similarities of all life on Earth" and "We affirm the established
findings of modern science, celebrating the wonders of God's creation"
Into some sort of science denial.

What does this matter?  You were still lying.  They aren't literally denying natural mechanisms they are claiming devine intervention, that is denial of natural mechanism being fully responsible for biological evolution.  They are just the same as Behe.  Behe understands that biological evolution is a fact of nature, but he believes that his designer is responsible for tweeking it along, at least, some of the time.  They are in denial of natural mechanisms being involved in all biological evolution just as much as Behe is.  How can you not get that they are claiming supernatural miracles instead of natural mechanisms? They are denying natural mechanisms for, at least, some of the evolution due to the supernatural miracles they claim happened, just as much as Behe is in denial of the evolution of his IC systems by natural mechanisms.  The closest Behe has come to his devine intervention mechanism is "puffs of smoke".  These guys are outright claiming supernatural miracles are responsible.

 

>
>
https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-evolutionary-creation
>
This comes after the quote about evolutionary creationism that I
originally put up.
>
QUOTE:
We believe that God acts purposefully in creation, just as he does in
our lives, and that he continues to actively uphold and sustain creation.
END QUOTE:

 And again, nothing there about God tweaking life the way Behe claims.

Lying about the quote doesn't make it true.  They believe that their god was involved in the creation (includes life) and is still involved. They are as bad as the Reason to Believe creationists that believe that god is still recreating lifeforms today to make it look like life evolved and is evolving on this planet except that they understand that evolution is a fact of life, and that they can only be tweekers with their god active in the evolutionary process.  Descent with modification is still true, but their god is responsible for some of the modification via supernatural miracles.

 

>
Tweekers acting purposefully in creation that they include life as part
of the creation.  The reason to believe exIDiots also believe that their
god is still working on the creation.
END REPOST:

 You really need to learn that just because you imagine something
doesn't make it true but I guess you are too set in your ways to
change at this stage.

They are claiming that their god is interfering with the creation on a regular basis.  They are tweekers.  My guess is that some of them could be tweekers like Ken Miller who believes that his god might have manipulated natural processes (he called it jiggling atoms) to make biological evolution come out the way it has, but others are probably like Behe and believe it was done with puffs of smoke.
There is no reason to continue to lie about this.
Ron Okimoto

 

>
I just took these reposts right out of this post, so the formating may
be messed up.
>
You ran from the las quotes and started your lame denial.  These guys
are tweekers (They believe that their god created with miracles).  They
are no different than Behe in his claim that his god tweeked the
flagellum into existence.  They are claiming that their god made humans
in his own image, and that miracles were involved.  Behe never says how
his god did it, but these guys do (supernatural miracles).  The closest
Behe ever came to that, was his "puffs of smoke" admission.  All they
have are Behe's denial type claims to support their beliefs.  Probably
all of the ID perps also believe that their god made man in his own
image, and their human exceptionalism stupidity is the result of that
belief.  The Discovery Institute made human exceptionalism a full
departement of it's own at one point.
>
I just looked it up and it is still claimed to be The Center on Human
Exceptionalism.
https://humanexceptionalism.center/
>
It is junk that the ID perps claim supports intelligent design of
humans.  They believe that human exceptionalism supports their religious
beliefs of their god making man in his own image.  The ID perps use the
arguments to claim that there are things that biological evolution
cannot do.
>
You should have never run from the material and started lying.  Claiming
that you want me to requote the material is just stupid when it is still
in this post.
>
Ron Okimoto
>
>

>
Why keep saying that there is something there when nobody else can see
it? Do you not realise how much of an idiot it is making you?
>
>

>
I will admit that this isn't as bad as you denying what your own trusted
source said about heliocentrism being a heresy, but it is the same type
of lame denial.

>
Yeah, the post where you made yourself out to understand Catholic
teaching better than the Catholic Church itself and you rejected the
views of respected historians and researchers in favour of a guy
promoting geocentrism. I'm surprised you want to remind people of that
piece of idiocy.
>

>
Really, some of them believe that their god was active in the past, and
active today with "miracles".  You know that they flat out make the
literalist claim that their god made humans in his own image.  They are
tweekers like Behe.  They believe that their god is still active today
just like the Reason To Believe creationists are claiming that their
designer is recreating lifeforms to make it look like they are still
evolving.  Science can't support those claims, and they are subject to
the same denial that Behe and the Reason to Believe creationists have to
maintain.
>
Ron Okimoto
>

>

>
They claim to believe that evolution was used by their god to create
humans in their god's image.  That is a specific Biblical literalist
claim.  They claim to be Biblical literalists that believe that miracles
apply in the past and present.  I do not know how you can stick with
your denial when these guys are as bad as Behe in their claims of their
god doing something.  Not just making specific claims like creating
humans in their god's image, but claiming supernatural miracles in order
to do it.  Even Behe doesn't claim supernatural miracles, he just claims
that he doesn't know how design was done.  There is no scientific
evidence for their literalist belief.  These guys have set themselves up
to continue the ID perp's denial about human evolution.  They are going
to be stuck with the same science denial that the ID perps have been
using against biological evolution doing what it obviously has done
during the evolution of humans from the last single celled common
ancestor of extant life on this planet.  That really is the only way
that they have to demonstrate that their god was needed.  They want
their god to have been involved in the process, but they do not have any
positive evidence for such a claim.  They are going to be looking for
the same impossible evolution that Behe has always claimed exists.
>
Ron Okimoto
>

>
>

>
Ron Okimoto
>

>
You claimed that in their core values, they deny that natural
mechanisms were ninvolved in evolution. They don't.
>
You claimed that their site supports "tweekers" but you can't say
where.
>
You even try to argue that their views on things that are not
"established findings of modern science" are somehow a rejection of
science.
>
You have absolutely nothing to support your attacks on Biologos except
your own febrile imagination, driven by your phobia that all
"creationists" are the same, that there is no real difference between
Southern Evangelicals and  Catholics and Anglicans and other
mainstream religions, that they all reject science.
>

>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>

>
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
>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>