How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?

[lawtonfogle]

Regardless of how some define "the theory of evolution," it is a belief that somehow living matter first made the transition from inanimate matter into living matter by an unknown process, then began its ever upward progress from the simple to the complex to a first species and then evolved into the millions and millions of plant and animal species.

Maybe you need to actually... I don't know... learn what evolution is before you disagree with it.


Remember, 99% of people who disagree with evolution cannot accurately define it.

 

[lawtonfogle]

So...you want me to admit that the "burden of the proof" is on us Creationists?
Otherwise...whose side is the BOTP on?

Science does not deal with non-science. As long as you admit it is supernatural, then science, limited to only natural explanations, by its very nature, cannot even consider your opinion. If you want creationism to be science, the BOTP is on you to show it is science. If you want to disprove evolution using science, the BOTP is on you to show how the current theory is false. If you want to argue against science using your beliefs which you do not try to make into science, then science is just going to full out ignore you.

If you want to disprove actual evolution, not evolution as applied to biology (the Theory of Evolution), then you are fighting mathematics, because simple evolution is a form of computational theory (thus genetic alforithms in computer science). It is your BOTP to show these algorithsm do not actually work, which is hard since they... um... do work.

I will agree that the way evolution is taught in most schools does involve some form of faith. The teacher says to just believe it. But that is a bad (or overworked) teacher, not the fault of evolution or the Theory of Evolution.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Young people drifted away from faith when exposed to evolution. Well that is too bad. Hope they will come back in their later life. Those do not drift away are very blessed.

From personal experience, I was a creationist for a long time because of being fed lies about science proving creationism was true. When I actually learned how many was lies, I begin to question everything that my church had told me. Luckily (figure of speech, I don't actually believe in luck), I realized I wasn't saved because of my church, but because of my relationship with Christ. I think many were as fortunate (against figure of speech).

 

[juvenissun]

Maybe you need to actually... I don't know... learn what evolution is before you disagree with it.


Remember, 99% of people who disagree with evolution cannot accurately define it.

100% evolutionists do not know how to define it.

 

[juvenissun]

From personal experience, I was a creationist for a long time because of being fed lies about science proving creationism was true. When I actually learned how many was lies, I begin to question everything that my church had told me. Luckily (figure of speech, I don't actually believe in luck), I realized I wasn't saved because of my church, but because of my relationship with Christ. I think many were as fortunate (against figure of speech).

So, you are a good example which shows that evolution destroyed faith. Too bad.

 

[juvenissun]

Your question was: "How should an average Christian, who knows nothing about evolution, evaluate evolution?"

The blindingly obvious answer would be to learn about evolution... Since you didn't bring this up, I assume you eliminated it for some reason.

Why shouldn't a Christian learn about evolution before evaluating it?

How much have you learned about evolution? Have you had a graduate study on any of the natural sciences?

Do you expect everyone in the church to do the same?
Do you reject Buddhism? How much do you know it so you can reject it with confidence? Why don't you study it before you reject it?

 

[The Lady Kate]

100% evolutionists do not know how to define it.

Is this another strawman, or are you going for a point here?

 

[The Lady Kate]

So, you are a good example which shows that evolution destroyed faith. Too bad.

Faith in ignorance and lies, especially when it's dressed up as "God," should be destroyed.

 

[lawtonfogle]

100% evolutionists do not know how to define it.

Because obviously the scientist who termed in would not know what they had just termed .

 

[lawtonfogle]

So, you are a good example which shows that evolution destroyed faith. Too bad.

People lying to protect creationism almost destroyed my faith. The end result of me becoming a TE is that my faith became stronger (I now have faith without thinking that all 'real scientist' agree with me). You got that one backwards.

 

[The Lady Kate]

How much have you learned about evolution? Have you had a graduate study on any of the natural sciences?

No... and clearly, neither have the people who zealously rail against it.

I do, however, attempt an honest evaluaton of it... which is more than its opponents do.

Do you expect everyone in the church to do the same?

You don't need to learn everything about what something is to understand what it is not... how much education does the average churchgoer need to spot a charlatan?

Of course, this is assuming you want them to be able to recognize charlatans...

Do you reject Buddhism? How much do you know it so you can reject it with confidence? Why don't you study it before you reject it?

As always, juviessun, you've picked a perfectly wrong example... I have studied Buddhism, and I chose not to "reject" it because the philosophy doesn't really conflict with Christianity all that much... when you really get down to studying it.

Perhaps you should make a point to study more.

 

[juvenissun]

People lying to protect creationism almost destroyed my faith. The end result of me becoming a TE is that my faith became stronger (I now have faith without thinking that all 'real scientist' agree with me). You got that one backwards.

OK, you are lucky. But I guess many of your peers are not as lucky as you are. Am I right? Evolution drives them to atheism.

It makes sense. If evolution is true, why do we need God? Why should we be saved, instead of just evolving? EVERYONE should study hard on biology and material, so we can evolve to cyborg as fast as we could. Human cloning project should be funded for 1 trillion dollars immediately.

 

[pgp_protector]

OK, you are lucky. But I guess many of your peers are not as lucky as you are. Am I right? Evolution drives them to atheism.

It makes sense. If evolution is true, why do we need God? Why should we be saved, instead of just evolving? EVERYONE should study hard on biology and material, so we can evolve to cyborg as fast as we could. Human cloning project should be funded for 1 trillion dollars immediately.

Hasn't driven me to Atheism.

 

[juvenissun]

No... and clearly, neither have the people who zealously rail against it.

I do, however, attempt an honest evaluaton of it... which is more than its opponents do.



You don't need to learn everything about what something is to understand what it is not... how much education does the average churchgoer need to spot a charlatan?

Of course, this is assuming you want them to be able to recognize charlatans...


As always, juviessun, you've picked a perfectly wrong example... I have studied Buddhism, and I chose not to "reject" it because the philosophy doesn't really conflict with Christianity all that much... when you really get down to studying it.

Perhaps you should make a point to study more.

I think philosophy is not enough for Buddhism. It is more than that. Do you agree with the additional part, for example, after-life too?

 

[The Lady Kate]

OK, you are lucky. But I guess many of your peers are not as lucky as you are. Am I right? Evolution drives them to atheism.

Only the ones who were wrongly taught that Creationism = Christianity... once they realize they've been lied to, what reason do they have to believe anything else their pastors (even their most well-intentioned ones) have to say?

It makes sense. If evolution is true, why do we need God? Why should we be saved, instead of just evolving?

You think "evolving" affects salvation? That it's more than a physical process? No wonder you're so confused.

EVERYONE should study hard on biology and material, so we can evolve to cyborg as fast as we could. Human cloning project should be funded for 1 trillion dollars immediately.

At this point, it becomes clear that you're embracing your strawmen again... If a pastor or church leader found honesty so inconvenient, would you be surprised if people abandoned him when they learned the truth?

 

[The Lady Kate]

I think philosophy is not enough for Buddhism. It is more than that. Do you agree with the additional part, for example, after-life too?

Do you know what the Buddhists say about the afterlife? They have an interesting parable on the topic:

A man travels to a Zen Master (Zen is the Japanese form of Buddhism which I find especially interesting) and asks him, "Master, what happens to us after we die?"
The Master responds, "I have no idea."
The man is stunned. "How can you not know? Aren't you a wise Zen Master?"
"Yes," the Master chuckles, "but not a dead one!"

 

[JusSumguy]

"Let me ask one question. How did the "first" single-celled organism survive?"
I think it died a long time ago.

lol, You do not know? lol.

You said that out loud.

I accept the theory of evolution because it makes sense of the available facts.

Yes, as long as we're talking about evolution WITHIN a species.

OK, you are lucky. But I guess many of your peers are not as lucky as you are. Am I right? Evolution drives them to atheism.

The farther one gets down that path, the more obvious it becomes that a supreme being must have had a hand in the process.

This is why so many "spontaneous" (atheists) evolutionists have turned to Theistic evolution.

Back to the original question regarding theistic evolution.

The reason people turn to this way of thinking is because there are two major facts involved, at the very root of this issue, facts that can't be denied.

1. Evolution within a species, and throughout he flora and fauna, is a solid proven fact

2. The closer science gets to the origin of life answer, the more it seems that none of this could have happened without some sort of intelligent design. And when they get even closer, the answer seems even farther.

In other words. The more science knows about the origin of life paradigm, the more futile "spontaneous" life seems as a viable alternative.

Theistic evolution is a natural path for a Christian who is also open to the obvious truths that science has to offer. So they/we chose to understand that the whole process just makes the wonders of God more glorious.

Every single bit of PROVEN evolutionary science fits perfectly into the theistic evolutionists way of thinking about creation.


-

 

[gluadys]

Regardless of how some define "the theory of evolution," it is a belief that somehow living matter first made the transition from inanimate matter into living matter by an unknown process, then began its ever upward progress from the simple to the complex to a first species and then evolved into the millions and millions of plant and animal species.

Nope. That's not the theory of evolution at all.

A lot of people who have never studied evolution do believe this is what evolution is about. But when you take time to study evolution, you soon find out that most of the stuff you outlined in that paragraph is not what biologists mean by evolution or by the theory of evolution.

1. The theory of evolution does not cover the transition (if there was one) from inanimate matter to living species. It doesn't matter how many uninformed people believe it does. It just does not and that's that.

2. There is no such thing as "evolving upward."

So, again, your objection to evolution is really about things that have nothing to do with evolution.

Most evolutionists do not believe God was involved in any part of the evolutionary theory. Some Christians like to believe God was.

And the theory of evolution says nothing one way or the other about this, as this is not something one can examine or test in a scientific way. So one can be an atheist and a biologist who studies evolution or a theist (of any faith, including Christian) and a biologist who studies evolution. And of course as a non-scientist one can learn about evolution and agree with it as a scientific thesis and be an atheist, agnostic, or believer of any faith whatsoever.

Some may not understand what the Bible means when it reveals that all living things were created "after their own kind," but it simply means that God created plants and animals fully formed so that they could reproduce after their own kind.

How do you know that it means living things were created "fully formed"? St.Augustine (who was certainly not influenced by Darwin) thought that all of creation was made as "seeds" which became fully formed over time.

Can plants and animals better adapt over time to their living conditions?

Not without a process of evolution, they can't. It takes evolution (specifically natural selection) to produce adaptations.

Yes they can, but they still remain within their created species.

That is what the theory of evolution says too.

The theory of evolution has never shown/proven in a laboratory how life does change from the spark of life to cells to the first living creature, and then from one species to another to another.

Of course not, if you mean the origin of life from non-living matter. The theory of evolution doesn't cover that.

What do you mean by "spark of life"?

Cells ARE the first living creatures.

Speciation has been observed, but it is probably not the same thing as you mean by "one species to another to another". That is probably something that would not happen according to the theory of evolution.

This part of the ToE is not true science,

That is why it is not part of the theory of evolution.

and does not agree with the fossil records that show fully formed creatures first show up in the Cambrian period some 500+ million years ago.

Actually, the first fully-formed creatures show up in the fossil record 3800 million years ago.

Do fossils of juveniles count as "fully formed"?

What is the definition of "fully formed"? What would you expect something that is not "fully formed" to look like?

The theory of evolution requires that all species be capable of surviving and reproducing. I expect that means the theory of evolution requires that all species be "fully formed" during the time of their existence.

The ToE nievely declares that a few species survived each extinction period, then rapidly evolved. This too is not true science.

What is naive about it? Why is it not true science?

 

[gluadys]

If evolution is true, why do we need God? Why should we be saved, instead of just evolving?

What a silly question. What does evolution have to do with salvation? Nothing, nada, zip, nichts,nihil.

EVERYONE should study hard on biology and material, so we can evolve to cyborg as fast as we could.

Another silly idea. Species don't control their own evolution. We couldn't make ourselves evolve into cyborgs even if we agreed it was a good idea. Where do you get these weird ideas about evolution from? Why don't you actually read a biology textbook. Or if you can't manage that, try these simple on-line tutorials. Evolution - Tutorials

Human cloning project should be funded for 1 trillion dollars immediately.

Why?

And what does this have to do with evolution?


Better to spend that kind of money on mitigating climate change and a decent health care system.

 

[lawtonfogle]

OK, you are lucky. But I guess many of your peers are not as lucky as you are. Am I right? Evolution drives them to atheism.

You keep missing it. Them finding out that their elders lied to them about some things make them not be able to trust what their elders have told them, which is usually the main reason they seem to stay Christian (not discussing if this makes them a true Christian or not, that is another debate).

It makes sense. If evolution is true, why do we need God?

There is as much need either way as far as I can tell.

Why should we be saved, instead of just evolving?

Species evolve, individuals do not.

EVERYONE should study hard on biology and material, so we can evolve to cyborg as fast as we could.

That wouldn't be evolution, and you need a lot more than biology... but I actually am looking forward to when that happens.

Human cloning project should be funded for 1 trillion dollars immediately.

I would suggest we get animal cloning down before we even start discussing the ethnics of human cloning.