Often I hear theistic evolutionists and atheists argue; "but God could have used evolution."
The problem I have with this statement, is that science explains things by natural causes, and those causes aren't really caused.
No. They are caused by God. However, it is scientifically impossible to prove that.
The problem is that science is incompetent to examine supernatural causes.
For example, with biological evolution, if we assume abiogenesis, well, biological evolution would then occur based on natural selection and mutations and other factors. You would say "what caused biological evolution?" Really the answer is, "nothing, it is a cause."
No. God is the ultimate cause. Biological evolution is His tool.
The real problem I have is that theistic evolutionism is basically the assertion God used the various types of evolution but science itself if asked if there is another cause needed would say, "no, the scientific answers have been given, the cause of the species is biological evolution, the cause of life is abiogenesis, the cause of the big bang is....well....the various gibberish about nothing exploding" etc...
Let me give another way of looking at it....
Professor Robert Jastrow-Ph.D. (1948), from Columbia University; Chief of the Theoretical Division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1958-61) and Founder/Director of NASA 's Goddard Institute; Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University; Professor of Space Studies-Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College. Writings include: Astronomy: Fundamentals And Frontiers (Wiley, 1972); God And The Astronomers (Norton, 1978); The Enchanted Loom (Touchstone, 1983); Has been described by Paddy Chayevsky as "the greatest writer on science alive today."
Recent developments in astronomy have implications that may go beyond their contribution to science itself. In a nutshell, astronomers, studying the Universe through their telescopes, have been forced to the conclusion that the world began suddenly, in a moment of creation, as the product of unknown forces.
The first scientific indication of an abrupt beginning for the world appeared about fifty years ago. At that time American astronomers, studying the great clusters of stars called galaxies, stumbled on evidence that the entire Universe is blowing up before our eyes. According to their observations, all the galaxies in the Universe are moving away from us and from one another at very high speeds, and the most distant are receding at the extraordinary speed of hundreds of millions of miles an hour.
This discovery led directly to the picture of a sudden beginning for the Universe; for if we retrace the movements of the moving galaxies backward in time, we find that at an earlier time they must have been closer together than they are today; at a still earlier time, they must have been still closer together; and if we go back far enough in time, we find that at a certain critical moment in the past all the galaxies in the Universe were packed together into one dense mass at an enormous density, pressure and temperature. Reacting to this pressure, the dense, hot matter must have exploded with incredible violence. The instant of the explosion marked the birth of the Universe.
The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion. It was literally the moment of Creation.
From a philosophical point of view, this finding has traumatic implications for science. Scientists have always felt more comfortable with the idea of a Universe that has existed forever, because their thinking is permeated with the idea of Cause and Effect; they believe that every event that takes place in the world can be explained in a rational way as the consequence of some previous event. Einstein once said, "The scientist is possessed of a sense of infinite causation." If there is a religion in science, this statement can be regarded as its principal article of faith. But the latest astronomical results indicate that at some point in the past the chain of cause and effect terminated abruptly. An important event occurred-the origin of the world-for which there is no known cause or explanation within the realm of science. The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen.
This is a distressing result for scientists because, in the scientist's view, given enough time and money, he must be able to find an explanation for the beginning of the Universe on his own terms-an explanation that fits into the framework of natural rather than supernatural forces.
So, the scientist asks himself, what cause led to the effect we call the Universe? And he proceeds to examine the conditions under which the world began. But then he sees that he is deprived-today, tomorrow, and very likely forever-of finding out the answer to this critical question.
Why is that? The answer has to do with the conditions that prevailed in the first moments of the Universe's existence. At that time it must have been compressed to an enormous-perhaps infinite-density, temperature and pressure. The shock of that moment must have destroyed every relic of an earlier, pre-creation Universe that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion. To find that cause, the scientist must reconstruct the chain of events that took place prior to the seeming moment of creation, and led to the appearance of our Universe as their end product. But just this, he cannot do. For all the evidence he might have examined to that end has been melted down and destroyed in the intense heat and pressure of the first moment. No clue remains to the nature of the forces-natural or supernatural that conspired to bring about the event we call the Big Bang.
This is a very surprising conclusion. Nothing in the history of science leads us to believe there should be a fundamental limit to the results of scientific inquiry. Science has had extraordinary success in piecing together the elements of a story of cosmic evolution that adds many details to the first pages of Genesis. The scientist has traced the history of the Universe back in time from the appearance of man to the lower animals, then across the threshold of life to a time when the earth did not exist, and then back farther still to a time when stars and galaxies had not yet formed and the heavens were dark. Now he goes farther back still, feeling he is close to success-the answer to the ultimate question of beginning-when suddenly the chain of cause and effect snaps. The birth of the Universe is an effect for which he cannot find the cause.
Some say still that if the astronomer cannot find that cause today, he will find it tomorrow, and we will read about it in the New York Times when Walter Sullivan gets around to reporting on it. But I think the circumstances of the Big Bang-the fiery holocaust that destroyed the record of the past-make that extremely unlikely.
This is why it seems to me and to others that the curtain drawn over the mystery of creation will never be raised by human efforts, at least in the foreseeable future. Although I am an agnostic, and not a believer, I still find much to ponder in the view expressed by the British astronomer E. A. Milne, who wrote, "We can make no propositions about the state of affairs [in the beginning]; in the Divine act of creation God is unobserved and unwitnessed."
So then if a theistic evolutionist asks of each theory; "Can God have used this process this theory describes?" Isn't the answer this; "No, because those theories are there to explain why certain facts are caused, and the answer to the cause of those facts is the theory we are expounding, so the scientific answer is that evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang ARE the explanations of the facts, and any other extra causes are not parsimonious to science.
What a bunch of gobbeltygoop. (I think that's like Mike's term "codswollop" (sp?)
Speaking as a theistic evolutionist....
God is fully capable of using natural processes to achieve His ends.
When the evidence of God's creation conflicts with the literal word of the Bible, the discrepancy must be resolved. "Truth cannot contradict truth."
As with any of us, I tend to lean toward those things I understand best. My engineering background gives me a pretty good understanding of physics. I agree with Jastrow in that there some things that science will never be able to solve. The cause of the big bang and abiogenesis are among them.
... any other extra causes are not parsimonious to science.
Creation science is everything but parsimonious.
We have given scientific answers to why life exists, why species exist and why the universe exists."
Not "why," but "how."
"Why" is a philosophical question that is beyond the scope of the natural and physical sciences.
Darwin himself also said that he would totally abandon evolution theory if it in any way required God as part of it's premises.
So it seems to me science doesn't have to come out and explicitly state that God is not there, but this silence about God is really a vacuous point people make about science not having an opinion about God, because implicitly those scientific theories are explanations of the things God said He caused in the bible, in place of God.
So it seems to me the complaint; "science says nothing about God", is really a little bit like saying; "This racist has never said anything bad about the Chinese, he only is racist towards black people."
So what - if he is prejudiced based on skin colour, he doesn't need to say anything, because we know his personality is to be prejudiced.
In the same way, science doesn't say anything about God directly, because it doesn't need to, it's theories speak loudly by saying this; "God is not there, because here are the scientific causes for the things God allegedly created, which is how it happened without God.".
That science doesn't say "Goddidit" is your real complaint, isn't it?
Can you present just one test available to science that can be used to show supernatural causation? Just one. I've been asking for decades and no one has been able to provide one.
Conclusion; I believe theistic evolutionists are deluded ....
Sorry, I was incapable of the mental gymnastics and contortions necessary to reconcile a truthful God with a universe that is more than 99.999999999% a fabrication. If God's creation is a lie, how can the Bible to be trusted at all?
.....and atheists can be liars, because they know it is advantageous to propagate the codswallop that secular science, "says nothing about God".
I wish Scirus were still around. It was a searchable database of over a hundred million scientific documents in various sciences. We'll just have to settle for the NASA Astrophysics system which has only a little over 10,000,000 documents (based on a search for the word "the" in the abstract of a paper).
Here's the link: http://adsabs.harvar...ct_service.html
Go ahead and search the physics and astronomy databases. I found less than 1,000 that have the word "God" in the abstract. The ones I checked were mostly from education journals discussing cultural matters, not the physical or natural sciences.