Airtightnoodle IS a Progressive Creationist

This is response to an article by Airtightnoodle where she denies being a progressive creationist. (I had previously claimed that Airtightnoodle didn’t publish one of my comments, this was false and I apologize for any confusion).

Previously, Airtightnoodle and I were discussing our differences regarding a literal interpretation of the Bible, what that means to our faith as Christians, and how it fits into evolutionary theory.  Specifically, we were discussing Mark 10:6, “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.”  At one point, I challenged Airtightnoodle, on her beliefs as an evolutionist.  Specifically, that the theory of evolution states that Natural Selection, and not God as Mark 10:6 (as well as Colossians 1:16) claims, formed humans from primate ancestors over the course of hundreds of thousands of years.

In response to my challenge over the course of our conversation, Airtightnoodle said several things to defend her Christianity.

“…and I have never said God is not the creator of all things.”

“The Bible says that God is the Creator…it does not go into detail about how God went about His creative work. As the bible is not a science text, I find it completely plausible that the two are not mutually exclusive and that evolution could be, in fact, one of God’s creative processes.”

“If God is the creator and author of natural laws, I see no reason why He can’t be credited for the process of evolution. That would still make Him still the Creator of everything, even if the process He used to achieve the ends to His means was evolution (etc).”

“It says God made everything. God is the creator. Agreed.”

These quotes are in direct contradiction to evolutionary theory.  On this much, we can all agree right?  Airtight literally said that evolution is “one of God’s creative processes.”  Is this more in line with theistic evolution, which states that God STARTED the evolutionary process, or with progressive creationism which states that God GUIDED the evolutionary process? 

The definitions of progressive creationism that Airtight gave on her blog fit the above quotes nicely.  However, Airtightnoodle is also a walking contradiction.  As the quotes above show, she holds that God is the creator of all things, and yet she considers evolution to be a viable explanation.  In fact, she frequently chides creationists for believing God has acted in the natural world, calling us “religious types” on a regular basis.  For example, even a theistic evolutionist would consider the Miller-Urey experiment to be bunk, and yet she just posted an article about how perhaps it’s more viable than first thought.  So, which one is it, did God create all things or is the Miller-Urey experiment on the right track on how life might have formed itself?  You can’t have it both ways Airtightnoodle.

“Yet I can’t help but find it funny that someone would group me, who runs a blog defending evolution, as a progressive creationist.”

Believe me, the irony of the position you find yourself in is not lost on me either.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Discussion

Tags: , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

11 Comments on “Airtightnoodle IS a Progressive Creationist”

  1. krissmith777 Says:

    I knoew already that she posted a responce. — I’m not sure whether to classify hjer as an evolutionist, or as a progressive creationist.

    But reading your quotes, I think she out to be places in a class of her own.

    At first I thought as a “Common descent” believing intelligent designer, like Michael Behe. — But that only PARTLY fits the bill.

    But I have to agree with you, though only partly. She’s not an evolutionist, but I cannot say “progressive creationist” either.

  2. krissmith777 Says:

    Eric says:

    “For example, even a theistic evolutionist would consider the Miller-Urey experiment to be bunk, and yet she just posted an article about how perhaps it’s more viable than first thought. So, which one is it, did God create all things or is the Miller-Urey experiment on the right track on how life might have formed itself? You can’t have it both ways Airtightnoodle.”

    You know, I think this is the root of why I don’t feel confortable placing her into ANY category as an evolutionist, IDer, or even as a progressive creationist.

    Her believing in God and yet trying to defend the Miller experiment (which even Miller himself said was invalid) shows an inner conflict. It seems to me that part of her want to become a true evolutionist which denies the existence of God, and the other part still want to hold on.

    I say, she’s in her own categorty.


  3. Eric, I have no clue what post you think I have deleted on my blog of yours. The only post I saw from you recently was in response to a person named Pieter who commented on my blog, and that one was certainly published.


  4. “Is this more in line with theistic evolution, which states that God STARTED the evolutionary process, or with progressive creationism which states that God GUIDED the evolutionary process?”

    You apparently didn’t read my post at all or look into progressive creationists in the least or you wouldn’t have posted such a definition of progressive creationism.

  5. Eric Kemp Says:

    airtightnoodle

    Yea, the Pieter comment is exactly the one to which I am referring. I promise that I checked the “my comments” section several times, and right before I hit “publish” on this article and I didn’t see it there. As the last thing I want to do is slander you, I just checked and the comment IS up. I will now take the first part of my article down.

    “You apparently didn’t read my post at all or look into progressive creationists in the least or you wouldn’t have posted such a definition of progressive creationism.”

    I read it, I promise. Progressive Creationism states that the fossil record is not evolution in action, but God’s progressive creative work. I get that. You’re statements that I quoted fit this more accurately than the theistic evolution position. Yet, as I said, at the same time, your entire blog is devoted to defending evolution, which states that God had nothing to do with any of it. So, as I said, you are some-what of a walking contradiction. Especially with that “religous type” and “Miller-Urey experiment” stuff.

    So maybe Kris is right, perhaps you are something else entirely.

  6. Michael Says:

    Progressive creationism, is just another term for evolution. There is only one major difference between the two.

    So instead of giving credit to an unthinking natural process for the evolution in the creation, she is giving it to God. All other aspects are generally the same as evolution.

    Macroevolution is rejected by most progressive creationists as biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record.

    How many articles reject macroevolution in her blogs?

  7. Eric Kemp Says:

    Michael

    Yea, but that’s the thing. She finds macroevolution biologically tenable and supported by the fossil record but then still claims that God is the creator of all things. I still don’t understand how she doesn’t find these things contradictory.

    Thanks for your input.

    Eric Kemp

  8. forknowledge Says:

    Wow, that comment is certainly interesting. There’s a common fallacy among Creationists which states that if something is tenable without God’s obvious intervention, it must therefore have happened without God’s intervention – and so should be slandered as widely as possible (you’ll notice that the actual evidence is completely beside the point here). I’d go so far as saying that Creationism is built entirely upon this fallacy, and probably the reason why Creationists are so hostile to real science in the first. It’s an incredibly unsophisticated view, and I’m guessing this is also where the ‘science attempts to disprove God’ myth comes from.

    Airtightnoodle (and many others) are sensible enough to recognise realise that it’s entirely possible for a God to exist and act in the Universe without our being able to detect it. How many times have you personally been told that science deals only with the natural world and can by definition only provide naturalistic explanations for things? If someone wants to believe in God, our inability to ‘discover’ its existence via science should not be seen as a threat – unless, that is, their faith is so unsophisticated that it must include ancient myths.

  9. Eric Kemp Says:

    forknowledge

    Hey man, it’s been awhile!

    “I’d go so far as saying that Creationism is built entirely upon this fallacy, and probably the reason why Creationists are so hostile to real science in the first.”

    Whoa! That’s not what I’m saying at all. I don’t even believe that. I understand where you could come to that conclusion based on my comment, but the context of my comment is very important.

    In fact, one of the points I make to atheists on occasion is that atheists MUST assume no-God a priori when studying science because it could be argued that God is working behind the scenes of everything and we couldn’t have any evidence that would disprove it. I said “on occasion” because, although true, it’s not very strong position and I know I can do better than it.

    But on to context. The Bible says that God “is the creator of all things” and “In Him all things hold together and have their being”. If you wanted to say that God “created all things” through evolution, that’s fine, I just don’t find it logically tenable that that is what the Bible means. It would be like saying that since my mother gave birth to me, she is ultimately responsible or “the creator of all things” that I’ve done. You could say it, but you’re being incredibly misleading.

    And when have I ever said I dislike “real” science? In fact, I have a stricter view of what science is than you and your brother do. You find philosophical conclusions about the unobservable past to be “real” science while I consider those to be what they are, philosophical conclusions.

    “I’m guessing this is also where the ’science attempts to disprove God’ myth comes from.”

    I’ve actually never said this either. In fact, the fathers of science were young earth creationists who were the first to make the assumption that induction was viable based on their belief in an orderly, law-like God. However, I do believe that the theory of evolution is used by the vast majority of atheists as their driving point towards atheism. You can’t deny that this is true.

    “Airtightnoodle (and many others) are sensible enough to recognise realise that it’s entirely possible for a God to exist and act in the Universe without our being able to detect it.”

    No, what Airtightnoodle is doing is stradling between worldviews. Unable to pick one, she is being inconsistent with both.

    “How many times have you personally been told that science deals only with the natural world and can by definition only provide naturalistic explanations for things?”

    This would be fine except that naturalism doesn’t do this. How many times have I said that just because you call an explanation “naturalistic” that doesn’t make it so? Abiogenesis is considered “naturalistic” however it is completely outside the bounds of any known science and any known natural law. Abiogenesis is the DEFINITION of supernatural. Just because you call it natural doesn’t make it so.

    “If someone wants to believe in God, our inability to ‘discover’ its existence via science should not be seen as a threat – unless, that is, their faith is so unsophisticated that it must include ancient myths.”

    God’s existence or non-existence is outside the bounds of science. I’ve said this many times. The funny part about this, though, is that those who are doing science that points to Intelligence are soundly ridiculed and shunned, however if someone wants to have faith in God for no reason, that’s ok with you?

  10. forknowledge Says:

    Eric, you cannot claim to like real science even while you say amazingly stupid things about it. Your assertion that abiogenesis is ‘supernatural’ is one of the denser things I’ve seen you claim.

    The reason why those who advocate IDC are shunned is because they’s peddlers of psuedoscience. Refer to the paragraph above this one: you cannot be taken seriously as a proponent of actual science if you continue to say amazingly stupid things about it. This is why Hovind, Ham and the IDC brigade are ridiculed so widely. Since you know this now, I won’t bother to repeat myself again.

    But you’re avoiding the topic: what about accepting evolution makes it so that one cannot also believe that God is ultimately the architect of evolution? Or more accurately, what is it about accepting evolution as being possible without obvious supernatural intervention which invalidates belief in an ultimate supernatural cause for it and all other things? You cannot show that God doesn’t cause evolution, and belief in God is very obviously not based on whether you can empirically verify its validity (yes, I know that people have tried to do this, but it always ends up failing). Your criticism of airtightnoodle seems to have more to do with her refusal to accept your ignorance concerning science than any real objection to her worldview.

  11. Eric Kemp Says:

    forknowledge

    “Eric, you cannot claim to like real science even while you say amazingly stupid things about it. Your assertion that abiogenesis is ’supernatural’ is one of the denser things I’ve seen you claim.”

    You seem to think that just because you state something, therefore it’s true. I made a very specific claim about why abiogenesis falls into the realm of a supernatural belief; I also did this in my post to you, and in my subsequent conversation with Penguin. Instead of responding to me, and showing how abiogenesis is not supernatural (ie. giving me a known natural law that can explain it), you say “you’re an idiot”. Very well done.

    The ironic part about this is that I’ve made two fine tuning posts, one displaying the general argument, and one fairly technical article on the biological fitness of water. Where were you? On the basic one, you (admittedly) went off on a ridiculous “coarse-tuning” tangent and didn’t respond to a single word in my article. The other you ignored.

    So, I make statements, you call me daft without refuting the statements. You say I have no idea about real science but you ignore my scientific arguments. Par for the course Forknowledge!

    “Refer to the paragraph above this one: you cannot be taken seriously as a proponent of actual science if you continue to say amazingly stupid things about it.”

    A statement isn’t stupid just because you say it is. But let’s be specific, are you claiming that abiogenesis is a testable scientific theory?

    “This is why Hovind, Ham and the IDC brigade are ridiculed so widely. Since you know this now, I won’t bother to repeat myself again.”

    Can you be specific as to why the dozens of AIG staff biochemists, genecists, biologists, geologists, immunologists, zoologists etc (all with board certified Ph.D’s) are doing pseudoscience? Are you saying that there is a different criteria from having a Ph.D that makes you a scientists? How did you come to this criteria? I’m looking for the definition of science and how they have deviated from it.

    “…what about accepting evolution makes it so that one cannot also believe that God is ultimately the architect of evolution?”

    Whoa! When did I ever say that God ISN’T the architect of evolution? I believe that He is. Since when have I ever objected to the testable evolution that we can see around us? It’s the unscientific, philosophically naturalistic conclusion of “therefore we all came from pond scum” that I disagree with.

    “Or more accurately, what is it about accepting evolution as being possible without obvious supernatural intervention which invalidates belief in an ultimate supernatural cause for it and all other things?”

    I’m not saying that Airtightnoodle can’t believe in evolution and God at the same time. I’m saying that Airtightnoodle can’t have the truth and infallibility of God’s Word and molecules-to-man evolution at the same time. There is a big difference. This is a conversation that would be pointless to have with you.

    “You cannot show that God doesn’t cause evolution, and belief in God is very obviously not based on whether you can empirically verify its validity . . . ”

    So you admit that God could be underneath it all and you could never prove otherwise. Then how do you know He doesn’t exist?

    “Your criticism of airtightnoodle seems to have more to do with her refusal to accept your ignorance concerning science than any real objection to her worldview.”

    Well, this shows that you haven’t even read our conversation. My criticism of Airtightnoodle has to do with her claim in the infallibility of Scripture when Scripture plainly says that the Earth was created in six literal days and that God made all the animals “after their kind”, even the words of Jesus even confirm a literal creation week. I’ve made this argument on two different posts, and won’t repeat it here.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: