Article <vqpf5r$20jfl$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<vqpf5r$20jfl$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionary creationism
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 08:51:54 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 99
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vqpf5r$20jfl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqnoka$1iv0p$1@dont-email.me> <m3accgF53a3U4@mid.individual.net>
Reply-To: rokimoto557@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="61874"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:siTGgpkN16NMxMutc/9fCE32xRo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <m3accgF53a3U4@mid.individual.net>
	DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO,
	FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,
	SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,
	URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 7964

On 3/11/2025 4:00 AM, David wrote:
> On 10/03/2025 22:20, RonO wrote:
>> https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-evolutionary-creation
>>
>> https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-is-biologos-different-from- 
>> evolutionism-intelligent-design-and-creationism
>>
>> 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:
>>
>> It looks like Biologos consists of Christians with some knowledge of 
>> science that want to fit what nature actually is into a Biblical 
>> context.  They seem to be a diverse group with some of them being 
>> evangelical Christians.  Essentially they want to do what the Reason 
>> to Believe old earth anti-evolution creationists have not been able to 
>> do.
>>
>> It seems like they understand the limits of science, and they are not 
>> trying to rewrite a cosmic mythology to replace the one that the 
>> Hebrew inherited from their neighbors.  These neighbors may have been 
>> civilized for thousands of years before the Israelites, but their flat 
>> earth cosmology is pretty far off the mark.  Any attempt to rewrite 
>> the Biblical creation mythology would be subject to future rewriting 
>> as a better understanding of nature continues to unfold.  They just 
>> seem interested in conforming what we currently understand about 
>> nature with a few chosen Biblical claims about our existence in this 
>> universe.
>>
>> They are not trying to get their religious beliefs taught in the 
>> public schools.  Unlike the Reason to Believe old earth creationists 
>> that have undertaken the impossible task of trying to take the Bible 
>> as literally as possible.  The Biologos creationists seem to have 
>> given up on doing that.  Instead they seem to be picking out parts of 
>> the creation mythology that they might be able to conform to what we 
>> know about nature.  They are theistic evolutionists and some of them 
>> are supernatural tweekers like Behe that have not given up on their 
>> god's supernatural involvement in the evolution of life on earth.
>>
>> The Biologos creationists differ from the ID perps by how they 
>> approach science.  The ID perps focus on gap denial, while the 
>> Biologos creationists focus on claiming that their god can be 
>> responsible for what we already understand about nature.  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.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
> 
> 
> What is YOUR thinking on this, Ron?
> 

I've admitted to being baptized into the Methodist church as an adult. 
At that time you had to go into a meeting with the pastor and be 
interviewed before being baptized.  I told the pastor that I did not 
take the Biblical view of nature literally, and he told me that, that 
was acceptable.  It is one of the things that Nyikos lied about to 
harass me for over a decade and a half.  Anyone can look it up, and the 
Methodists take no stand on those aspects of the Bible.  There is a YEC 
faction in the Methodist church, but they coexist with theistic 
evolutionists and old earth creationists.  How the Bible got it wrong 
about nature is not an issue in the Methodist church.  You can look into 
it and the Methodist church has been against teaching creationism and ID 
in the public schools since the start of the scientific creationist 
efforts.  As such I have never been inclined to use any of my science 
endeavors to support my religious beliefs.  Nature is just what it is, 
and science is just the study of nature.  I have always understood that 
my religious beliefs are not rational, and has never depended the same 
rational evaluation of nature that science depends on.  My take is that 
most religious scientists have the same view of the difference between 
science and religion.  They are not trying to justify their religious 
beliefs through their science.  They are just trying to contribute their 
part to a better understanding of nature.  I see no reason to lie about 
what the situation currently is, and have always been against the 
anti-science efforts of creationists.

Ron Okimoto