It's time to stop being afraid of ridicule

[John Helpher]

There's no such thing as theistic evolution. There's either evolutionary theory or intelligent design. Because they are opposing theories, it does not make sense to mash them together. Evolutionary theory is an explanation for how life came to be what it is through natural, unguided processes. No guidance. No plan. No creator.

Intelligent design is exactly as the name says. An intelligent, purposeful mind is the explanation. Even if you believe God could have coded a program to cause evolutionary change over billions of years, that is still not evolution. That is intelligent design. But, listening to the way people talk, I get the feeling that they call it theistic evolution because it's safer than calling it intelligent design. You don't want to be that kind of Christian. Those kind of Christians tend to get ridiculed. And, it can get quite personal.

That's not hyperbole. I had an atheist tell me that he genuinely believed it was not only okay, but good, to ridicule Christians because reasoned arguments just don't work on them. The ridicule is like being cruel to be kind. They'll realize later, once they snap out of it, that it was for their own good. There's a good deal of people out there doing that kind of thing without being aware of it.

Calling it theistic evolution seems to cut down on at least some of that ridicule. At least you're getting the evolution part right. Most atheists seem to be happy with that trade off. But, I think it's time to stop being afraid to call it what it really is,; intelligent design. Give credit back to the creator where it belongs.

 

[dwb001]

I will stick with Young Earther.
ID people also include Old Earth thinkers and that just ain't me.
Let the ridicule fly but I will stick with what I got.

 

[BobRyan]

There's no such thing as theistic evolution. There's either evolutionary theory or intelligent design. Because they are opposing theories, it does not make sense to mash them together. Evolutionary theory is an explanation for how life came to be what it is through natural, unguided processes.

Indeed - two opposing doctrines on origins

No guidance. No plan. No creator.

pure, less-self-conflicted, Theistic evolution would argue for plan (intelligent design), guidance, creator to get evolutionism out of the ditch each time it runs aground. Thus it would try to avoid making a "distinctively atheist" argument against the Romans 1 "intelligent design" seen in "the things that have been made" - seen even by all mankind, even those opposed to God according to Rom 1.

But sadly, if you start a thread on "Intelligent design" based on that Rom 1 fact - you will find an even more-compromised version of theistic evolution arise - where they go for a distinctively atheist POV that rejects even "intelligent design" seen in the things that "have been made". They will argue that only a Bible-believing Christian will imagine/suppose they see design and that Rom 1 is false when it says all mankind sees it.

John 16 says God convicts the entire world of sin and righteousness and judgment via the Holy Spirit. The atheist will insist that such is not the case and no God-the-Holy Spirit influences them at all since He does not exist. But as Christians we know the atheist is even wrong about what he supposes to be going on inside his own head in that regard.

============================

Keys to accurately understanding Gen 1

For Each day – the events ON that day are identified a follows

1. Events between “and evening and morning were”
2. Events that begin with “And God said LET…”
3. Both must be true – to qualify as an event ON that specific day
4. Ex 20:11 "legal code" in the TEN commandments hardwires the Gen 2:2-4 7 days of creation week to 7 day time frame at Sinai. Which eliminates all the "allegory, poetry, symbolism" attempts to discredit Gen 1-2 - that legal code most certainly does not employ
5. Neither Moses nor his readers were Darwinists – and so were not inclined to insert a bias for Darwinism into the text , having no need to turn it into allegory etc

Keys to opposing Gen 1

1. Ignore the keys to understanding Genesis 1 above.

About Theistic Evolutionism

1. In its purest form it affirms design, plan, direction and specifically the Romans 1 concept of Intelligent design seen by all humans in the things that have been made
2. In its compromised form it makes the distinctively atheist argument against Romans 1 and its statement on intelligent design seen IN nature

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There's no such thing as theistic evolution. There's either evolutionary theory or intelligent design. Because they are opposing theories, it does not make sense to mash them together. Evolutionary theory is an explanation for how life came to be what it is through natural, unguided processes. No guidance. No plan. No creator.

Intelligent design is exactly as the name says. An intelligent, purposeful mind is the explanation. Even if you believe God could have coded a program to cause evolutionary change over billions of years, that is still not evolution. That is intelligent design. But, listening to the way people talk, I get the feeling that they call it theistic evolution because it's safer than calling it intelligent design. You don't want to be that kind of Christian. Those kind of Christians tend to get ridiculed. And, it can get quite personal.

That's not hyperbole. I had an atheist tell me that he genuinely believed it was not only okay, but good, to ridicule Christians because reasoned arguments just don't work on them. The ridicule is like being cruel to be kind. They'll realize later, once they snap out of it, that it was for their own good. There's a good deal of people out there doing that kind of thing without being aware of it.

Calling it theistic evolution seems to cut down on at least some of that ridicule. At least you're getting the evolution part right. Most atheists seem to be happy with that trade off. But, I think it's time to stop being afraid to call it what it really is,; intelligent design. Give credit back to the creator where it belongs.

Oh, I've never been afraid of their---or anyone's ridicule. EVER!!!!

Of course, I'm not an advocate of I.D. either, so I kind of have a safer niche in that regard. But that's beside the point.

 

[eleos1954]

There's no such thing as theistic evolution. There's either evolutionary theory or intelligent design. Because they are opposing theories, it does not make sense to mash them together. Evolutionary theory is an explanation for how life came to be what it is through natural, unguided processes. No guidance. No plan. No creator.

Intelligent design is exactly as the name says. An intelligent, purposeful mind is the explanation. Even if you believe God could have coded a program to cause evolutionary change over billions of years, that is still not evolution. That is intelligent design. But, listening to the way people talk, I get the feeling that they call it theistic evolution because it's safer than calling it intelligent design. You don't want to be that kind of Christian. Those kind of Christians tend to get ridiculed. And, it can get quite personal.

That's not hyperbole. I had an atheist tell me that he genuinely believed it was not only okay, but good, to ridicule Christians because reasoned arguments just don't work on them. The ridicule is like being cruel to be kind. They'll realize later, once they snap out of it, that it was for their own good. There's a good deal of people out there doing that kind of thing without being aware of it.

Calling it theistic evolution seems to cut down on at least some of that ridicule. At least you're getting the evolution part right. Most atheists seem to be happy with that trade off. But, I think it's time to stop being afraid to call it what it really is,; intelligent design. Give credit back to the creator where it belongs.

theistic evolution ... is a belief where one has "its cake and eat it to" and it dismisses the Genesis account ... God being the creator of everything (fully formed) from the beginning.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

There's no such thing as theistic evolution. There's either evolutionary theory or intelligent design. Because they are opposing theories, it does not make sense to mash them together. Evolutionary theory is an explanation for how life came to be what it is through natural, unguided processes. No guidance. No plan. No creator.

Intelligent design is exactly as the name says. An intelligent, purposeful mind is the explanation. Even if you believe God could have coded a program to cause evolutionary change over billions of years, that is still not evolution. That is intelligent design. But, listening to the way people talk, I get the feeling that they call it theistic evolution because it's safer than calling it intelligent design. You don't want to be that kind of Christian. Those kind of Christians tend to get ridiculed. And, it can get quite personal.

That's not hyperbole. I had an atheist tell me that he genuinely believed it was not only okay, but good, to ridicule Christians because reasoned arguments just don't work on them. The ridicule is like being cruel to be kind. They'll realize later, once they snap out of it, that it was for their own good. There's a good deal of people out there doing that kind of thing without being aware of it.

Calling it theistic evolution seems to cut down on at least some of that ridicule. At least you're getting the evolution part right. Most atheists seem to be happy with that trade off. But, I think it's time to stop being afraid to call it what it really is,; intelligent design. Give credit back to the creator where it belongs.

Theistic means of God.
Theistic evolution means Evolution guided by God.
If you have ever watched Prometheus, it presents the development of species by alien beings, i.e., "intelligent design."
Saying theistic evolution differentiates it from Prometheus.

"I get the feeling that they call it theistic evolution because it's safer than calling it intelligent design."
Nope. You have read it wrong. Feelings are usually not good sources of information. Why not just ask people why they call it theistic evolution rather than surmise something evil about them?
Peace

 

[d taylor]

-
​

There are actually 3, the first two still rely on science and not just The Bible. The 3rd one is Biblically based with no support from science and proclaims the true creation.

 

[John Helpher]

If you have ever watched Prometheus, it presents the development of species by alien beings, i.e., "intelligent design."
Saying theistic evolution differentiates it from Prometheus.

Hello, SBG. Actually, according to the argument I'm making, there would be no distinction. Whether in the case of the actual creator itself, or aliens, if intelligent beings caused our existence to happen, then we are the result of intelligent design.

To me, it makes sense to call it intelligent design for two reasons; 1) The creator deserves that credit and 2) It makes my position perfectly clear; a mind is the reason for our existence. . If you really wanted a more religious tone to it, call it intelligent creation. We often use titles like this as a kind of summary of what is being titled. Calling it theistic evolution will necessarily communicate to people that while you'd like to make it into something religious, the important thing is that you still agree it was done the way atheists say it was done.

It's subtle, so it often goes unobserved, but I believe the irrationality of cramming two opposing concepts together indicates a reasoning problem. It could be that I'm just over reacting, but we could test it. Or, you could test it. When you talk about anything related to theistic evolution, instead of calling it that, call it intelligent design for a month and see what happens.. Through the course of discussion you can explain your views on how God did it via many small changes. You can explain exactly what evolution is, just don't call it that and observe carefully what happens as a result. Don't explain that you normally call it something else, as that would spoil the experiment.

I'd be interested to hear how it goes.

 

[John Helpher]

I will stick with Young Earther.
ID people also include Old Earth thinkers and that just ain't me.

Actually, the point I'm making is that any explanation which involves a designer would be classified as intelligent design. In this category, the method of creation (whether young, old, whole, partial, whatever) is beside the point that an intelligence is the cause of these things.

Let the ridicule fly but I will stick with what I got.

Heh, somehow I believe you. Thanks for sharing.

 

[John Helpher]

There are actually 3

I don't think that fits the argument I'm making. You seem to be saying the three options are, 1: intelligent design from a scientific point of view, 2: evolutionary theory, 3: Biblical God.

But, options 1 and 3 are the same in terms of there being a creator. The method is beside the point that there is an intelligent cause behind the method.

 

[John Helpher]

Of course, I'm not an advocate of I.D. either, so I kind of have a safer niche in that regard. But that's beside the point.

Yeah that's the trick; if you call it intelligent design, then you're one of "those" kind. If you call it theistic evolution you tend to be safe. The evolution part let's people know you're not entirely crazy.

 

[d taylor]

I don't think that fits the argument I'm making. You seem to be saying the three options are, 1: intelligent design from a scientific point of view, 2: evolutionary theory, 3: Biblical God.

But, options 1 and 3 are the same in terms of there being a creator. The method is beside the point that there is an intelligent cause behind the method.

-
​

No, i am saying the intelligent design mixes God and science, that intelligent design is not based solely on The Bible's creation accounts. But uses science (or tries to use science) to support Biblical creation.

 

[BobRyan]

-
​

No, i am saying the intelligent design mixes God and science, that intelligent design is not based solely on The Bible's creation accounts. But uses science (or tries to use science) to support Biblical creation.

Well that is true for many who affirm intelligent design - but others promoting it simply argue for a view of evolution that admits to intelligent design regardless of the source of that design.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't think that fits the argument I'm making. You seem to be saying the three options are, 1: intelligent design from a scientific point of view, 2: evolutionary theory, 3: Biblical God.

But, options 1 and 3 are the same in terms of there being a creator. The method is beside the point that there is an intelligent cause behind the method.

In a lot of cases that is correct - but there are a number of non-Christian participants in Intelligent Design forums that argue for ID but don't admit the Bible is the Word of God.

 

[John Helpher]

but there are a number of non-Christian participants in Intelligent Design forums that argue for ID but don't admit the Bible is the Word of God.

Right, but neither would they need to, as the ID argument does not purport to explain what the creator actually is; only that there is a creator. Honestly, I see this as just another reason to stop calling it theistic evolution and start calling it intelligent design.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah that's the trick; if you call it intelligent design, then you're one of "those" kind. If you call it theistic evolution you tend to be safe. The evolution part let's people know you're not entirely crazy.

Actually, I'm just an existentialist and a realist who has a penchant for Jesus. I'm not sure how "safe" that actually allows me to be. And frankly, I don't care if folks think I'm crazy. If they do, then they do. Boo hoo!

 

[d taylor]

-​

There is the

1. Evolution view of atheist (atheist scientist and atheist unbelievers) that is void of God creator

2. Then there is the God uses evolution to bring about His creation view adopted by people who want to believe in evolution and God.

3. There is the intelligent design or God creator view, that still accepts a lot of sciences views of creation leaving out only evolution as a way. They emphasize God as creator, but still accept at least 95% of science's creation version.

4. Finally there is the Bible only creation belief, using only the Bible's account's/description's of creation. Rejecting any and all of science's creation views.

 

[Hawkins]

Science relies on its predictability and falsifiability to identify a truth of a repeatable phenomenon. If the phenomenon itself doesn't repeat, or it's out of human capability to make it repeat, science won't be able to delieve an answer about whether it's true or not. You may have a lot of co-existing theories under the circumstance. Such as BBT, it cannot be proved scientifically (by means of predictability and falsifiability) on the one hand, you can have multiple theories to explain the origin of universe or the lack thereof.

In the same manner, evolution ever true, is never predictable and falsifiable as it's out of human capability to make a full cycle of end-to-end evolution to occur. That is, you can't repeat a process where <any existing organism> is formed from single cell organisms. No scientific truth can be delivered under the circumstance. Science has already given up from the beginning. We don't even attempt to build a predictable and falsifiable model, instead we treat it as a non-repeatable and thus non-scientific scenario for us apply our knowledge of science to give it an explanation by means of evidence. "explanation by means of evidence" is not even an attempt to establish a scientifically predicable and falsifiable model (as the pre-requisite is that the phenomenon itself must repeat).

To put it another way, science is legit only when a phenomenon is repeatable. The next question is, what is legit when a phenomenon is not repeatable, such as a one-time historical event? The only legit way for a historical truth to be approached is by means of putting faith in testimonies. That's the way how all kinds of histories are written. So the most legit way is the Genesis way. God the eyewitness said how He created the universe and earth, for a human to write God's testimony down then for other humans to believe with faith. So far this is the only legit way for a one-time historical event to be conveyed to human kind.

Did you ever have any eggs before the age of two? If your mom said that it's a yes, then it's a yes. Science.....it can do nothing!

 

[Aaron112]

To put it another way, science is legit only when a phenomenon is repeatable.

If it is for profit, it might still not be legit.

If something is repeatable, is it still a "phenomenon" ?

 

[Hawkins]

If it is for profit, it might still not be legit.

If something is repeatable, is it still a "phenomenon" ?

Sure, say the moon moving around earth and earth around Sun. They are repeatable phenomena. Such that one can establish a predictable and falsifiable model on these phenomena. Actually Isaac Newton was inspired by the repeatable phenomenon that an apple always drops the same way no matter how many times you try it.