-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?
- Thread starter PT Calvinist
- Start date
L
LightSeaker
Guest
I'm glad that you believe all of that. For the most part, I don't.
Your #3 does ask an interesting question though. My take is that Evolution and Geology are showing us how God creates. The Bible on the other hand is a book about mans relationship with God. It's not a science book. So as I see it, by default, because we see what we see in Creation, God has a long term creating project in His Creation that continually evolves over time.
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 29,889
- 13,365
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
You've been misled about that. Last poll in the United States, about two-thirds of "evolutionists" thought God was doing it that way.
Fits the evidence. And unlike YE creationism, it's consistent with God's word in Genesis.
Upvote
0
However, we have records from the start of the "experiment", in the form of fossil records and DNA comparisons.
And yet you dismiss the evidence in the real world that supports evolution. Why do you do this if the real world is God's creation and you said he doesn't use it to lie?
Actually, there is a wealth of information supporting evolution. It is just as supported as the theory of gravitation or of heliocentrism.
Upvote
0
sfs
Senior Member
- Jun 30, 2003
- 10,851
- 7,873
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I can't, of course -- no scientific theories (we don't call them "truths") can be validated if testing them takes millions of years. Fortunately, testing evolution doesn't take millions of years either. Science is quite capable of testing theories about things that happened long in the past, or that are happening now in places that we can't observe. Most of astronomy and geology, for example, fall into this category. What matters is whether a theory makes a prediction that we can test with observations we make today, not when the event in question happened.
For a good example, look at the Oklo reactor in Gabon. This was a naturally occurring reactor that formed in uranium deposits, with the reactions taking place billions of years ago, and occurring over millions of years. But we still know with great certainty what happened there and why. The changes to isotope ratios tell the story of what happened, and (using known decay rates) we can project backwards to when the events must have occurred. In fact, we can use the modern observations made there to set stringent limits on much the constants of nature could have changed over 2 billion years, based on how closely the observations match predictions based on nuclear theory.
There is nothing fundamentally different about evolution. We can say what we would expect to find in, say, genetics, if different species were related by common descent. Then we can (and do) go and look at billions and billions of base pairs of DNA in different species to see whether those predictions are borne out. Guess what? The predictions are consistently confirmed by the data. And when new genetic phenomena are found (e.g. a new family of endogenous retroviruses), we can immediately ask whether it makes sense in light of the evolutionary conclusions we've already drawn. Guess what again? The new data almost always makes sense in an evolutionary framework. That's how science works, whether it's evolution or particle physics or chemistry.
Who?
Right. So why are you suggesting that people who do believe this are somehow not treating God as the creator?
How could you possibly judge that, since you actually know little or nothing about the evidence for evolution? What is your basis for making this judgment?
How does acknowledging the obvious facts play into the hands of anyone? And how does sticking our fingers in our ears and chanting "I don't want to believe that" do anything to convince skeptics that Christians are anything but the willfully ignorant, believing in a self-imposed delusion?
"More plausible"? Who the heck are you to be telling God how he should have created life? Why should your notions of what's plausible be any constraint on how God chooses to do things? Why not just look at the data and try to see how God did do it, rather than forming an opinion about how he should have done it?
Why? What do the two things have to do with each other?
Upvote
0
If the study of science and validating scientific truths to a high degree of accuracy is godless as evolutionists say who do not believe in Creator God, how is the study of science from a theistic evolution any different than the study of science from a godless evolution standpoint?
If God did not intervene in the evolution of the expanding universe, or in how life on earth either was created or evolved once life first began, then the study of godless evolution and theistic evolution are the same.
If God did intervene in how life on earth either was created or evolved once life first began and Gods creating work was then finished after God created man in His image, then how can man today determine what parts of scientific truths are fixed and what parts were not fixed during the creating process?
If God did not intervene in the evolution of the expanding universe, or in how life on earth either was created or evolved once life first began, then the study of godless evolution and theistic evolution are the same.
If God did intervene in how life on earth either was created or evolved once life first began and Gods creating work was then finished after God created man in His image, then how can man today determine what parts of scientific truths are fixed and what parts were not fixed during the creating process?
Upvote
0
lawtonfogle
My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Science, in and of itself, never ever ever ever relies on 'God' in any form of an answer. But a Theistic Scientist can incorporate that science into his system of beliefs, as long as he never is happy accepting 'Goddidit' for an answer to any of the questions which can be empirically tested.
Think of baking a cake. You can bake a cake and eat it. You can bake a cake and give it to a friend as a 'welcome to the faith' gift for when they accept Christ, or you can bake a cake and give it to a friend to welcome them for joining the atheist side. While some uses seem more 'Godly' then others, in the end, it is just baking a cake. You are not going to go throw the eggs, flour, sugar, yeast, ect. into the over and ask God to do the rest. You are gonna bake a cake via some recipe of variation thereof, and then you are gonna use it for some purpose.
Why would God need to intervene? Do you think He is not wise/smart enough to set the initial conditions to give the outcome He wanted without having to fix it along the way?
Anything science deals with has to be from the perspective of 'God did not do it'.
Upvote
0
T
The Lady Kate
Guest
Because evolution deals strictly with the physical world, which God transcends.
If the study of archetecture and validating physics truths to a high degree of accuracy is godless as archetects say who do not believe in Creator God, how is the study of bulding a skyscraper from a theistic archetect any different than the study of building one from a godless archetecture standpoint?
Answer... it's not.
But if God did intervene... just not in the ham-fisted way Creationists demand of Him...
What is a "scientific truth" and why does it need fixing?
Upvote
0
Why do you believe God must "intervene" in nature? Do you think the natural laws He created and sustains are incapable of bringing about His will? Do you similarly think God "intervenes" in the everyday workings of gravity and atomic bonding? The way you speak, it seems as though you think God is capable of exercising His will via miracles alone.
Upvote
0
L
LightSeaker
Guest
That is SO wrong. Science does not speak one way or the other about God. It takes no position either way.
.
Upvote
0
Breckmin
Junior Member
Much of the problem is nomenclature. "Evolution" in Theistic Evolution is
observable and therefore not an area of dispute between creationists
and Neo-Darwinianists (or any title which you wish to use to discribe
someone who believes in universal common descent) because of speciation.
Real areas of dispute are speciation that takes place above the
genus level or transitional species which is not observed. Specifically,
a creationist would dispute new information being added to a genome.
To answer the OP. The reason I became a TE (temporarily) could be
as simple as rejecting the *historicity* of the Torah. I was seduced
by not only 10's of thousands of inductions which made sense to me
when interpreted within the assumptions of a scientific hermeneutical
system which appeared to make sense (even though species were
clearly distinct in the fossil record). Some of my deception evolved
the mechanism of DNA itself and mutation, but most of my belief in
TE came from a naturalistic and materialistic worldview which failed
to process information correctly with sound assumptions built on
deduction and scientific observation, but rather relied on possibilities,
circular reasonings and 10's of thousands of inductions.
For me, it could have possibly been summed up by referring to
the creation story itself as a "story" with a couple of magic trees
and a talking snake. There was far more involved in my sympathy
for an evolutionary process for God's creative power.
I always claimed to be a creationist, even when I asserted TE, I
just claimed that the process was common descent with modification
rather than special creation and multiple common ancestors to start
with.
Why did I become a TE's? I believe God allowed me to "learn" an
incredible amount from the inside looking out. I would have never
identified the 10's of thousands of inductions from which I was
basing my belief, nor would I have understood how to identify
the real areas of dispute regarding speciation and natural selection.
I would challenge ANY theist who believes in universal common
descent to PRAY! Pray for protection from that which is not true
and EVEN be willing to pray for protection from "induction" if induction
has deceived you into believing something that is NOT true before
the Creator? Pray sincerely to our Heavenly Father for protection
from that which is NOT from Him and that which is not true!
TE is very very believable (and I couldn't put enough very's there).
But are not all complex lies believable that sell?
For me, dissent from creationism started with a rejection of biblical
innerancy (which I could not handle the truth at the time - and I
still reject verbal plenary inspiration as being the best view of scripture)
and a rejection of the historical accuracy of the bible as a learned more
and more about scientific interpretation by scientists who taught the
theory of universal common descent.
NOT Science, but rather INTERPRETATIONS in scientific fields + the
disbelief in a literal interpretation of scripture = my dissent into wrongfully
asserting the theory of universal common descent.
It is all about how you process information.
Upvote
0
lawtonfogle
My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Um... you just said I was wrong and then agreed with me. Not taking into account God at all is the same thing as saying God did not do it.
When science looks at some question of "What caused X?", it cannot accept "God did it." as an answer, because such an answer is not empirical.
Upvote
0
lawtonfogle
My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Again, you say I am wrong but then agree with me. Maybe people are just misreading me. What I am saying is that because science rejects non-emphirical, aka. miraculous, explanations, it cannot accept "God did it" as an answer. Thus it works from the perspective of "God did not do it".
Upvote
0
Breckmin
Junior Member
Evolution as we think of it happens. Speciation and common ancestry
happen. Survival of the fittest happens. The question is "are these
guided by an undirected process of "natural selection" and does speciation
occur outside of genera?
What we have done is taken the processes by which God created to
bring about "variety" in the species and we have "FALSELY interpreted
these processes" as an origin for all species. We have done this through
induction which is open to error.
The same type of induction which was used to conclude ontogeny
recapitulates phylogeny. The same type of induction that is used
to conclude relatedness from commonalities (either morphologically
or genetic). ERV's and ARG's and their insertion points are expected
to be the same in creationism with panina and Homo sapiens as well
as universal common descent theory. UCD theory doesn't have
monopoly on virus insertion points any more than they have a
monopoly on the principles from which we discover vaccinations
(through the principles we see in creation).
We see the SAME scientific data and see ORDER and God's Trademark
in the creation. So called "evolutionists" do not have a monopoly on
the scientific research which identifies these principles and then uses
them to make more discoveries on how the creation works.
Creationism is inclusive of all observed sciences.
Upvote
0
Also selection happens.
That is not a scientific question though. Theistic evolution assumes that God in some sense guides evolution or that God's purposes are expressed through the evolutionary processes God established. However, there is no empirical test that would decide between a theistic and a non-theistic view of evolution. But the science is the same either way.
No, never. Speciation is the dividing of a population into groups which either immediately or after a time of mutually exclusive evolution become separate species. That can't happen outside of a genus. A genus and all higher taxa are the consequence of multiple speciations in the same lineage.
In human terms you see the same thing in a family tree. An individual is born into a nuclear family. When he or she and his/her siblings have children the whole group is an extended family. After a few generations of reproduction, you might consider the whole extended family a clan. And after several more generations of reproduction the expanded group might be called a tribe. So we have a nested hierarchy: nuclear families in extended families in clans in tribes, etc. But that doesn't mean that any birth took place outside of a nuclear family. The larger groupings come about as a consequence of multiple births in many related nuclear families.
The nested hierarchy of common descent comes about the same way: through many speciations in related species. There is no need, and no possibility, of a speciation occurring outside of the genus that the speciating population is a part of. But if you have enough speciations in the genus, you might upgrade its status to that of a family and assign genus names to smaller groups in the family. At least if you wish to continue using Linnean rankings, which are seldom used by phylogenists these days.
I don't see what is erroneous about this. What species stands out as not having its origin in the evolutionary process?
Actually, differences count as strongly as commonalities in studying relatedness. "shared derived synapomorphies" is the scientific term. "Shared" means the group does share a feature. But "derived" means the feature is NOT shared with other groups. So it is a sharing of a difference, if you get what I mean. For example: all mammals have mammary glands--this is one feature that marks them out as a group. But it is also a feature no other group has, so it is also a feature that differentiates them from other groups. So as a group they share what makes them different.
Then we have "synapomorphy" An apomorphy is a distinctive feature not found in earlier species. "syn" (meaning "with") indicates that a group is marked not by just one distinctive feature, but by several which always occur together in this group.
To go back to mammals, not only do they all have mammary glands, they also all have three inner ear bones. Now there is no particular reason why every creature that has mammary glands also has three inner ear bones and vice versa. What explains such a concatenation of disparate features better than inheritance from a common ancestor?
Why? I have never heard any reason why this would be a feature of separately created species.
And it is not just panina. Humans share ERVs and ARGs with all the hominids. And phylogenetic analysis of the variations in the ERVs not only results in a nested hierarchy, but the same nested hierarchy as phylogenetic analysis of morphological and other genetic factors. I fail to see how anything other than common descent can explain a convergence on the same nested hierarchy.
Well, evolutionary creationists certainly see order and God's trademark in creation too. So this is not distinctive to non-evolutionary creationism.
Upvote
0
Okay, here's a thought experiment.
We have one universe. In this universe, we believe God is omnipresent in everything, correct? So God permeates every natural process including evolution right?
So how would you tell if God is there or not? He's omnipresent, there is no "Not God" sample. He's everywhere. So there is no way to tell if God is there or isn't, because all results will read the same no matter what. It would read X if we assume God is there, it'll read X if we assume God isn't there, and there's no place it wouldn't read X because God is everywhere. So, since nothing will change anywhere, there's nowhere the result won't read X, you can't really assume anything either way, can you? You just don't know.
And of course those who don't believe will see is more as God not being there so everything reading X. But it'll still be all the same.
Metherion
We have one universe. In this universe, we believe God is omnipresent in everything, correct? So God permeates every natural process including evolution right?
So how would you tell if God is there or not? He's omnipresent, there is no "Not God" sample. He's everywhere. So there is no way to tell if God is there or isn't, because all results will read the same no matter what. It would read X if we assume God is there, it'll read X if we assume God isn't there, and there's no place it wouldn't read X because God is everywhere. So, since nothing will change anywhere, there's nowhere the result won't read X, you can't really assume anything either way, can you? You just don't know.
And of course those who don't believe will see is more as God not being there so everything reading X. But it'll still be all the same.
Metherion
Upvote
0
L
LightSeaker
Guest
Science makes no comment one way or the other about God. Science does not work from the perspective of "God did not do it", but in the same breath, science also does not work from the perspective of "God did it" either. As someone else mentioned, science it agnostic.
Upvote
0
Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
No, it simply looks for naturalistic explanations. What is a miracle anyway? How do you know something is a miracle? From the time of the church fathers the answer has been it is a miracle if there isn't a natural explanation, if the event is above, contrary to, or outside nature. To know that, you have to know what is natural and how nature works, you have to look for a purely natural explanation before you can say there isn't a natural explanation and the event was a miracle. That is what science does, it looks for natural explanations. If however you insist science must include natural and supernatural mechanisms, then there is no way to find if an event is natural, and as a result no way to identify the miraculous. Including the miraculous in science does not foster the miraculous, it destroys any possibility of showing the miraculous has taken place.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
