It's time to stop being afraid of ridicule

[John Helpher]

I do not see any conflict at all. I

Evolutionary theory is an explanation which eliminates any purposeful guidance. There is no meaning. There is no intent. There is no plan. There is just process. It just happens, not by any rational input, but randomly, and we are the output of all that process.

Intelligent design is the exact opposite. They are competing theories in that they cannot both be true at the same time without becoming inherently self-contradictory. Theistic evolution is a misnomer which has the rather convenient side effect of blurring the lines just enough for theists to escape the ridicule that comes with calling it intelligent design and for evolutionary supporters to feel good that even though you've still got some problem areas with your religious delusions, at least you believe in evolution.

It is often subtle, but this kind of thing happens a lot. There's a scene from Family Guy about the evolution vs creation debate. Peter sets up a cut-away to the I Dream of Jeannie sitcom where Barbara Eden walks along magically winking into existence all these various animals, the idea being that a creator God is just as ridiculous as a miracle-working comedy humans create to entertain themselves.

The trick is that this was not only a self own, but showed just how ignorant the general public can be about what evolutionary theory actually is. Referring to a creator inherently means a mind used intelligence and purposefulness of will to cause something to be created. The imagery of magically winking into existence completely misses the point. That's the ignorant part. The self own is that this magical winking-into-existence is exactly what evolutionary theory relies on.

Because there is no purposeful guidance, you're just relying on random chance. Whether it's amino acids just kind of falling into place by accident to form proteins which which just kinda fall into place by accident to create cells, or whether it's changes to the information in the code via random mutations, it all relies on random chance.

But, we know that information does not just randomly or spontaneously pop into existence. It is the result of a mind. Code doesn't just magically pop into existence. It is the result of a coder purposefully placing each character in its specialized place such that the entire program is able to work as a whole. Any random changes to this code will not make it better. That is self evident according to the nature of what code is.

So yes, there is a very, very, very, verrrrrry big difference between the accidental theory and the purposeful theory.

 

[Diamond7]

Intelligent design is the exact opposite.

An intelligent designer could have used evolution. Theistic Evolution proposes that an intelligent and purposeful creator utilized natural processes, including evolution, to bring about the diversity and complexity of life we observe today. If you deny Theistic Evolution, than you are denying God.

For now we see in part, know in part, understand in part. But then we shall know and understand in full.

1 Corinthians 8:2
And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Evolutionary theory is an explanation which eliminates any purposeful guidance. There is no meaning. There is no intent. There is no plan. There is just process. It just happens, not by any rational input, but randomly, and we are the output of all that process.

Intelligent design is the exact opposite. They are competing theories in that they cannot both be true at the same time without becoming inherently self-contradictory. Theistic evolution is a misnomer which has the rather convenient side effect of blurring the lines just enough for theists to escape the ridicule that comes with calling it intelligent design and for evolutionary supporters to feel good that even though you've still got some problem areas with your religious delusions, at least you believe in evolution.

It is often subtle, but this kind of thing happens a lot. There's a scene from Family Guy about the evolution vs creation debate. Peter sets up a cut-away to the I Dream of Jeannie sitcom where Barbara Eden walks along magically winking into existence all these various animals, the idea being that a creator God is just as ridiculous as a miracle-working comedy humans create to entertain themselves.

The trick is that this was not only a self own, but showed just how ignorant the general public can be about what evolutionary theory actually is. Referring to a creator inherently means a mind used intelligence and purposefulness of will to cause something to be created. The imagery of magically winking into existence completely misses the point. That's the ignorant part. The self own is that this magical winking-into-existence is exactly what evolutionary theory relies on.

Because there is no purposeful guidance, you're just relying on random chance. Whether it's amino acids just kind of falling into place by accident to form proteins which which just kinda fall into place by accident to create cells, or whether it's changes to the information in the code via random mutations, it all relies on random chance.

But, we know that information does not just randomly or spontaneously pop into existence. It is the result of a mind. Code doesn't just magically pop into existence. It is the result of a coder purposefully placing each character in its specialized place such that the entire program is able to work as a whole. Any random changes to this code will not make it better. That is self evident according to the nature of what code is.

So yes, there is a very, very, very, verrrrrry big difference between the accidental theory and the purposeful theory.

You're misrepresenting Theistic Evolutionist. Rather than speaking for them, actually quote them and then address their quotes. As it is, you're just going on a rhetorical spiel that ends up being a form of polemic to naysay what you don't like. I know you're a smart guy, so I suspect you can do better than this.

 

[John Helpher]

If you deny Theistic Evolution, than you are denying God.

It's not a denial of the theory, but rather an observation that the label is more of a social compromise than an accurate descriptor.

 

[Diamond7]

It's not a denial of the theory, but rather an observation that the label is more of a social compromise than an accurate descriptor.

There really is no theory. It is more of a belief that there is no conflict. I do not have anyone that can falsify the Bible. There is no conflict between Science and the Bible. True Science agrees with a proper translation and interpretation of the Bible.

 

[John Helpher]

There is no conflict between Science and the Bible.

Sure. I'm only saying that people who call it theistic evolution tend to do so because that is the label least likely to attract ridicule but that even when they do so sincerely, still do so mistakenly. The point is to make it clear that intelligence is the cause, regardless of the method.

 

[Diamond7]

Whether it's amino acids just kind of falling into place by accident

Nothing is an accident. The Bible is a clear as can be that God declares the end from the beginning. (Isaiah 46:10) He watches over His word to perform what He declared He was going to do. (Jeremiah 1:12) Evo Devo is a Scientific theory that there was a plan and a purpose from the beginning based on what is understood of the natural laws of gravity and astro physics.

My son is a computer engineer and he tells me that random does not exist. Some things are just to complicated for us to understand. Just like it is difficult for us to understand that God is going to cause all things to work together for good. We only encounter disaster if we do not follow God's plan and purpose for us and our life. (Romans 8:28) "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

 

[Diamond7]

Sure. I'm only saying that people who call it theistic evolution tend to do so because that is the label least likely to attract ridicule but that even when they do so sincerely, still do so mistakenly.

What is the mistake? Theistic evolution is poorly defined. The leading export is Frances Collins and his theory is filled with errors. He is just to busy to really develop the theory. Also he lost a lot of creditability when he removed the US Government ban on high risk pathogen research. They say he resigned but I am not so sure that the Biden administration did not show him the door and push him out.

"The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" is a book written by Francis S. Collins. Francis Collins is a physician-geneticist who played a significant role in the Human Genome Project, which aimed to map and sequence all the genes of the human species. In the book, Collins discusses his experiences in science, his journey from atheism to Christianity, and how he reconciles his scientific knowledge with his Christian faith, presenting an argument for the compatibility of science and faith.

So I can understand where the theory is filled with controversy. That is mostly because the theory if poorly defined. The details have not been worked out and that could be due to the controversy.

Collins emphasizes that science helps us understand the mechanisms and processes of the natural world, while faith provides answers to questions about purpose, meaning, and morality. He encourages an open dialogue between the scientific and religious communities and advocates for mutual respect and understanding.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure. I'm only saying that people who call it theistic evolution tend to do so because that is the label least likely to attract ridicule but that even when they do so sincerely, still do so mistakenly. The point is to make it clear that intelligence is the cause, regardless of the method.

I'm an evolutionist who values the Bible. I'm also a Realist who maintains some Existential leanings. And I don't care one lick if anyone ridicules me or not about any of it. In fact I never have cared about whether other people think I'm sane or crazy, rational or irrational.

I also don't think the likes of Francis Collins or other Christians who are theistic evolutionists really care all that much, if at all, about the possibility of ridicule.

So, maybe stop with this false rejoinder you're fancying? It's getting kind of old. It's also unnecessary and incorrect.

 

[FaithT]

Sure. I'm only saying that people who call it theistic evolution tend to do so because that is the label least likely to attract ridicule but that even when they do so sincerely, still do so mistakenly. The point is to make it clear that intelligence is the cause, regardless of the method.

I think that’s where the word “theistic” comes in.

 

[John Helpher]

I think that’s where the word “theistic” comes in.

People tend to think that using religious language somehow makes them right with God while in their day-to-day practical lives, they live just like everyone else. We don't need a title which indicates religious identity and we certainly don't need to include the words atheists use as a way of communicating to them that we're actually a little on their side, too. We need a way of talking about it that describes what it actually is.

Intelligent design fits the best. It is one of the two fundamental options remaining after all else is considered; it's either intelligent design or random chance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

People tend to think that using religious language somehow makes them right with God while in their day-to-day practical lives, they live just like everyone else. We don't need a title which indicates religious identity and we certainly don't need to include the words atheists use as a way of communicating to them that we're actually a little on their side, too. We need a way of talking about it that describes what it actually is.

Intelligent design fits the best. It is one of the two fundamental options remaining after all else is considered; it's either intelligent design or random chance.

And some people tend to think that using religious language allows them to point the finger and assume, without much if any direct evidence, that others don't morally live as well or better than they do ...............................................

 

[FaithT]

People tend to think that using religious language somehow makes them right with God while in their day-to-day practical lives, they live just like everyone else. We don't need a title which indicates religious identity and we certainly don't need to include the words atheists use as a way of communicating to them that we're actually a little on their side, too. We need a way of talking about it that describes what it actually is.

Intelligent design fits the best. It is one of the two fundamental options remaining after all else is considered; it's either intelligent design or random chance.

I disagree.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

No, that's wrong. First, evolutionary theory is not about how life came to be. This is perhaps the most common misconception among creationists. No matter how many times they are corrected, they seem to be unable to get their heads around that fact. Not all of them, of course, but most of them.

Theistic evolution is merely the recognition that evolution is the way God produces new taxa. It's not a theory, of course, it's a religious belief. There are IDers like Michael Behe who are theistic evolutionists. Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Denton admits that ID presupposes a universe "front-loaded" to produce life. He doesn't specify the designer, but it sure sounds like God.

The key to understanding how God is powerful enough to use evolution to effect His will is that. as St. Thomas Aquinas notes, that divine providence only requires that something happen. And God can use contingency just as surely as He can use necessity to accomplish His purposes.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"An intelligent designer could have used evolution. "

Evolution if defined by change over time certainly, which is what is described by Genesis as well as by Darwinists.

But Darwinian evolution, inherently and explicitly proposes an entirely random and unguided process for that change.
In stark contrast to an intended, premeditated, guided, anticipated result of a purposeful creator.

I genuinely don't know how these are reconciled. If God set an inherently random process in motion-- was the emergence of an intelligent being capable of appreciating creation, deducing and worshipping its' creator.. an unanticipated coincidence?

 

[The Barbarian]

But Darwinian evolution, inherently and explicitly proposes an entirely random and unguided process for that change.

Actually, Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. This goes back to the point that most people who hate science, don't actually know what it is.

However, an omnipotent Creator, such as the one I know, can use contingency as well as necessity to effect His will. Maybe yours can too?

If God set an inherently random process in motion-- was the emergence of an intelligent being capable of appreciating creation, deducing and worshiping its' creator.. an unanticipated coincidence?

Not for an all-powerful God. But it doesn't matter for Darwinian evolution, which is by definition, not random.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Actually, Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. This goes back to the point that most people who hate science, don't actually know what it is.

I have an early addition of the book on my desk and he explicitly describes the process at random.

The modern synthesis of Darwinism still maintains that mutations are entirely random.

However, an omnipotent Creator, such as the one I know, can use contingency as well as necessity to effect His will. Maybe yours can too?

Not for an all-powerful God. But it doesn't matter for Darwinian evolution, which is by definition, not random.

Random chance is the defining characteristic of Darwinism. I don't think any other theory posits a purely random process to account for evolutionary change.

God effecting his will for change is not a random process, and thus distinctly un-Darwinian.. is it not?

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. This goes back to the point that most people who hate science, don't actually know what it is.

I have an early addition of the book on my desk and he explicitly describes the process at random.

Nope. But feel free to give us the paragraph and I'll show you why it's not what you thought.

The modern synthesis of Darwinism still maintains that mutations are entirely random.

Well, in fact, they aren't always absolutely random,

Philosophy of Science Volume 79 Issue 1 ​

January 2012 , pp. 95 - 119​

The Role of Randomness in Darwinian Evolution​

Historically, one of the most controversial aspects of Darwinian evolution has been the prominent role that randomness and random change play in it. Most biologists agree that mutations in DNA have random effects on fitness. However, fitness is a highly simplified scalar representation of an enormously complex phenotype. Challenges to Darwinian thinking have focused on such complex phenotypes. Whether mutations affect such complex phenotypes randomly is ill understood. Here I discuss three very different classes of well-studied molecular phenotypes in which mutations cause nonrandom changes, based on our current knowledge. What is more, this nonrandomness facilitates evolutionary adaptation. Thus, living beings may translate DNA change into nonrandom phenotypic change that facilitates Darwinian evolution.

But as you have seen, a random process with a non-random process, is a non-random process.

Random chance is the defining characteristic of Darwinism.

Natural selection is the defining characteristic of Darwinian theory. As you see, natural selection cannot be random.

I don't think any other theory posits a purely random process to account for evolutionary change.

Actually, neutralist theories do that to a degree. But they still include Darwinian selection at some point. You see, most mutations actually do very little. You have dozens of them that were present in neither of your parents.

From the Kahn Academy:

• The mechanism that Darwin proposed for evolution is natural selection. Because resources are limited in nature, organisms with heritable traits that favor survival and reproduction will tend to leave more offspring than their peers, causing the traits to increase in frequency over generations.
• Natural selection causes populations to become adapted, or increasingly well-suited, to their environments over time. Natural selection depends on the environment and requires existing heritable variation in a group.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/natural-selection-ap/a/darwin-evolution-natural-selection

They seem to have a gift for making things simple. You might want to take a look here, to clear up some of this for you.

God effecting his will for change is not a random process

An omnipotent God like mine can use contingency to do His will.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Natural selection is the defining characteristic of Darwinian theory

I appreciate all your responses but I'm singling this out as it gets to the heart of it.

Natural selection applies in exactly the same way to Lamarckism, Intelligent design, natural engineering and creationism. It goes entirely without saying that nature will tend to filter and disperse different species in different environments.

What sets Darwinism apart is that it is the only theory that relies 100% on pure blind chance to originate 100% of everything available to be selected.

We all get what natural selection does. If you're saying a superior design will tend to out perform, out last and hence be reproduced in higher numbers than inferior ones.... that's not a novel insight, it's why you see more Ford Mustangs on the road than Ford Pintos. It does nothing to account for the creation of either.

 

[The Barbarian]

I appreciate all your responses but I'm singling this out as it gets to the heart of it.

Natural selection applies in exactly the same way to Lamarckism, Intelligent design, natural engineering and creationism. It goes entirely without saying that nature will tend to filter and disperse different species in different environments.

What sets Darwinism apart is that it is the only theory that relies 100% on pure blind chance to originate 100% of everything available to be selected.

Yes, that's what the evidence shows. Lamarckism supposes that there is some internal driver making things change. But it doesn't work. Some IDers suppose that God can only make it work by stepping in now and then to patch things up, while others assume He "front-loaded" nature to work as intended. Creationism assumes God cannot create a universe in which things appear according to His will, so He has to do each kind at a time.

Darwinism is the one that describes the way we actually see it work.