RE: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)

From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Mon Mar 02 2009 - 13:15:01 EST

James Patterson said:
" Because it seems to me that is exactly what the TE position is saying:
"We're OK with the supernatural, we just don't like the miracles in
Genesis." Is that incorrect?"

As a TE, I have no problems with miracles. They are possible. The problem is when they are disproven, with the two biggies being the creation of humans and the worldwide flood. The resurrection of Christ can't be proven or disproven, so it is entirely a matter of faith (faith in believing or faith in rejecting).


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of James Patterson
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 5:49 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Or I guess you can, you have free
will, and personal choice. But I'm not going to agree with it.

So it's OK to have miracles in the NT and also in the OT, but not in G1 and
G2? Because it seems to me that is exactly what the TE position is saying:
"We're OK with the supernatural, we just don't like the miracles in
Genesis." Is that incorrect? If so, then please describe how, and where
exactly in the Bible that you think God's word becomes true, and the
references to the supernatural actually refer to the supernatural. JP

-----Original Message-----
From: John Walley []
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 7:07 PM
To:; James Patterson
Subject: RE: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)

At the risk of annoying James again, I feel I have to call out some errors
in this post but I will try to be civil as requested.

First I reject the definition of TE offered by James and I suspect most
others would as well. I don't think anyone would agree that God works "only
through natural mechanisms". So therefore the resurrection and miracles of
Jesus are not exceptions to the rule, they are entirely consistent with it.
This is another example of setting up a fallacious argument just to attack
Further Adam is not the linchpin of supernatural intervention of God in His
creation either. Not having him does not falsify the rest of the bible. As
pointed out before in the below previous post to you, at least my definition
of the TE position does not exclude intervention in creation but it does not
depend on it either. It is simply a minimalist position that retreats back
to faith as the frontiers of how God interacts with His creation is revealed
through science. Even if abiogenesis and cell metabolism and information is
reduced to just chemistry and natural law, my position still holds as God is
the author of chemistry. The difference is this position cannot be falsified
but insisting on a historical Adam just because "the Bible says so" can be.

This was posted on 2/9:

> James,
> Yes you have to believe and no one is saying that TE or any
> other form of
> science faith integration removes that. However in my
> opinion you have to have a
> belief system that cannot be falsified and therefore that
> results in a
> minimalist form belief. We agree that God created the
> universe and life and
> humans in His image and that it was beautiful. Where we
> part company is on the
> specifics of how He did so and whether it is provable or
> not.
> YEC's, RTB, ID and others stretch or distort the
> science to support theological
> models that leave them with the last word and therein lies
> the problem. I think
> it may remain a mystery how exactly God DID create us but
> it is easy enough to
> see how He DIDN'T and to rule several theories out.
> So instead of insisting on 'Testable' theories that
> fail the test, I think a
> better position would be to just leave it at belief where
> we started and defend
> its non-falsifiability in the face of whatever science
> reveals.

--- On Thu, 2/26/09, James Patterson <> wrote:

> From: James Patterson <>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Proof (was: Our discourse here)
> To:
> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 7:09 PM
> Bernie says:
> The big picture: there are only two general ways in which
> humans were
> biologically made: Either by fiat (a miracle from God from
> scratch-
> scooping/forming dirt and breathing life into it) or by
> evolution from lower
> animals.
> I respond:
> This is the point at which I disagree. And it is not just a
> specific
> disagreement with this statement but a deep philosophical
> disagreement with
> what this statement represents.
> The TE position is that God works through natural
> mechanisms, and only
> through natural mechanisms. Yet we know this isn't
> true, and the average TE
> knows and accepts that it isn't true. Specific examples
> are the creation of
> the universe and the resurrection of Christ. I don't
> think there is anyone
> on this list who would disagree with me on those two
> points. Of course, the
> TE position is that these are exceptions to the rule. The
> question then
> becomes: are these the only exceptions? What about these
> other purported
> supernatural events?
> Matthew 1:20 - virgin birth
> Micah 5:2 - the prophecy of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem,
> mentioned in Matthew
> 2:6
> Matthew 2:13 - Angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a
> dream
> Jeremiah 31:15 - prophecy mentioned in Matthew 2:18
> Isiah 40:3 - prophecy mentioned in Matthew 3:3
> Matthew 3:16-17 - the Spirit of God descended and spoke
> from heave.
> I could go on. This is from just the first few chapters of
> Matthew. I could
> fill up pages with examples of miracles, signs, and
> wonders. But let's just
> leave it here, for now.
> Your reply, sir?
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 2 13:15:29 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 02 2009 - 13:15:37 EST