Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I was wondering if any would agree to back up this idea I had for this web site. I notice in our views of the Orign of Life we have Theaistic Evolution or Athestic Evolution. One belives In Evolution with no supper natural forces, deity, Gods, God, Godhead, Goddess, ect. Why the others belives that Evolution was guided by the hand of a Deity, Gods, God, Godhead, Goddess, ect. But is there such a thing as Agnostic Evolution? As is in maby some one who belives in evolution but admits he dose not know if there is a God Or belives in evolution but also admit he dose not know how we got here?
So I was wondering if maby we should add Agnostic evolution for those who belive in Evolution but are not 100% sure if there is a God or not.
What do you think?
Last edited by TheKingOfImmortality; 4th March 2008 at 09:30 PM.
I was wondering if any would agree to back up this idea I had for this web site. I notice in our views of the Orign of Life we have Theaistic Evolution or Athestic Evolution. One belives In Evolution with no supper natural forces, deity, Gods, God, Godhead, Goddess, ect. Why the others belives that Evolution was guided by the hand of a Deity, Gods, God, Godhead, Goddess, ect. But is there such a thing as Agnostic Evolution? As is in maby some who belives in evolution but admits he dose not know if there is a God Or belive in evolution but also admit he dose not know how we got here?
So I was wondering if maby we should add Agnostic evolution for those who belive in Evolution but are not 100% sure if there is a God or not.
What do you think?
Remember that evolution doesn't deal in first origins, only in change within living organisms, so the difference in the agnostic and the atheist positions on god really don't matter. And this is why evolutionists don't care if you postulate a god or not as the originator of life. And where the theistic evolutionist may claim an on going hand-of-god inserting itself in evolutionary operations, because neither agnostics or subscribe to a god, they would be of a like mind in rejecting the theist claim.
I think the way to look at it is to discard the artificial distinction between evolution and other scientific ideas. Saying that evolution was ordained by God to create the diversity of life adds nothing scientifically to the theory, and neither does the idea that there is no God. In short, I don't see how there's anything special about accepting theistic/atheistic/agnostic evolution that makes it distinct from simply being a theist/atheist/agnostic who accepts evolution.
It's just that nobody feels the need to distinguish themselves as "theistic trigonometrist" or an "atheistic fissionist" because there's been no significant religious opposition to trigonometry and nuclear physics.
__________________ We are men, not gods. The choice therefore is not between the wisdom of man and the wisdom of God, but between man's wisdom and man's folly. If we reject the former, we will surely fall into the latter.
I think the way to look at it is to discard the artificial distinction between evolution and other scientific ideas. Saying that evolution was ordained by God to create the diversity of life adds nothing scientifically to the theory, and neither does the idea that there is no God. In short, I don't see how there's anything special about accepting theistic/atheistic/agnostic evolution that makes it distinct from simply being a theist/atheist/agnostic who accepts evolution.
It's just that nobody feels the need to distinguish themselves as "theistic trigonometrist" or an "atheistic fissionist" because there's been no significant religious opposition to trigonometry and nuclear physics.
Exactly, there is no need to call yourself an "atheistic evolutionist" or "theistic evolutionist."
In fact "evolutionist" is an obsolete term used in the 19th century by people who thought evolution was driven by a purpose (which violates modern evolutionary theory) or by creationists to make science seem more like a belief system. I don't see gravitists, heliocentricists, atomists, thermodynamicists, germists, weatherists, cellists, and so forth. Evolution was discovered using the exact same techniques and principles as gravity, heliocentricism, atomic theory, thermodynamics, germ theory, and meteorology, and cell theory.
Exactly, there is no need to call yourself an "atheistic evolutionist" or "theistic evolutionist."
In fact "evolutionist" is an obsolete term used in the 19th century by people who thought evolution was driven by a purpose (which violates modern evolutionary theory) or by creationists to make science seem more like a belief system. I don't see gravitists, heliocentricists, atomists, thermodynamicists, germists, weatherists, cellists, and so forth. Evolution was discovered using the exact same techniques and principles as gravity, heliocentricism, atomic theory, thermodynamics, germ theory, and meteorology, and cell theory.
Yes but it's a handy term. As much as I hate it, I'd rather call myself an "evolutionist" than "a person who accepts the scientific theory of evolution due to overwhelming evidence". Cuz, you know, my fingers would hurt.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
So I was wondering if maby we should add Agnostic evolution for those who belive in Evolution but are not 100% sure if there is a God or not.
What do you think?
If agnostics get their own theory of evolution then the Raelians definitely deserve their own. Raelian evolution? Sounds good to me.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
I think most Buddhist do not consider evolution relevant to the faith; there is no requirement in Buddhism that the world originate in one way or the other; it is all a reflection of the back of your hand in the flowing river.
But if there is agnostic evolution, then there is deistic evolution, monistic evolution, pantheist evolution, polytheist evolution, skeptic evolution, pandeist evolution, poly-pandeist evolution, panenpolytheist evolution. Etc.
But if there is agnostic evolution, then there is deistic evolution, monistic evolution, pantheist evolution, polytheist evolution, skeptic evolution, pandeist evolution, poly-pandeist evolution, panenpolytheist evolution. Etc.
I'm going to continue calling it evolution without adding a religious qualifier. I don't see theistic or atheistic chemistry after all.
Linear Mode
