How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?

[LightSeaker]

Again I ask, how is the Godless ToE any different than theistic evolution?

Those who follow theistic evolution see the hand of God at work in His Creation. Those who are godless, do not see the hand of God at work.

.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Again I ask, how is the Godless ToE any different than theistic evolution?

The same way Godless algebra is different from theistic math.

Once God finished His work of creating unique plants and creatures over time, God continues working within His created creatures via miracles, especially the miracle of the new birth for those created in God's image.

The difference is, we know how some of those miracles work now.

 

[John 10:10]

Those who follow theistic evolution see the hand of God at work in His Creation. Those who are godless, do not see the hand of God at work.

I too see the hand of God totally at work in His Creation from the start to the finish, but we seem to differ greatly when it comes theistic evolution which believes God worked thru Darwin's ToE.

When it comes to inanimate matter, we can validate to a high degree of accuracy many of the scientific laws that govern God's inanimate matter.

But when it comes to animate matter, we can only validate to a high degree of accuracy some of the scientific laws that govern God's created life as it now exists.

When it comes to validating "IF" God's created life evolved via Darwin's ToE, this is beyond the purview of science to determine.

Blessings

 

[The Lady Kate]

When it comes to validating "IF" God's created life evolved via Darwin's ToE, this is beyond the purview of science to determine.

Blessings

I'm afriad you've got it backwards... determining whether or not life evolved via the ToE (It's not really Darwin's anymore, we've moved beyond him) is well within science's purview... determining whether or not that life was created by God... that's the part science cannot touch.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Actually, science does not reject the supernatural either. As far as science is concerned the supernatural may or may not exist.

But because the supernatural is not empirically testable, it is excluded from scientific consideration.

And thus it does reject the supernatural as an explanation. To exclude from consideration is to reject from consideration.

 

[gluadys]

When it comes to validating "IF" God's created life evolved via Darwin's ToE, this is beyond the purview of science to determine.

Blessings

Not too sure what you are saying here.

Is the issue whether species evolve or whether evolution is the process outlined in the theory of evolution? Or some other question entirely.

As far as I can see the only question beyond the purview of science to determine is whether God sustains evolution.

That evolution happens and how it happens are well within the parameters of scientific observation.

 

[lawtonfogle]

But a natural explanation is no legitimate explanation at all unless you
can differentiate between the natural and the supernatural.


Circular reasoning, btw. How do you know that the so called *natural*
even exists? apart from the supernatural? Let's start with a basic
understanding of natural ORDER and where does it originate?

Quite easy. If something is empirically testable, then it is natural.

How do you know that what you consider to just be *natural* is not
actually the result of the so called *supernatural?* How do you know
that when you are "testing something" - that you are not testing and
order that is sustained supernaturally? By what right do you limit the
creation to being merely *natural* and eliminate God's supernatural
sustaining power?

Science just assumes it is not. This is why science, at best, gives out empirical truths, not absolute truths.

What about scientists who do NOT take a circular approach to *natural?*

People are more than just scientist. Most people have some esoteric beliefs, even some atheist (just 'There exist God/a god/gods/ect.' is not one of them).

The fact we can apply the result of science to our beliefs does not mean that there is some correct way to do that, or that this is conclusive science.

What about scientists who claim that scientific observation CAN INDEED
lead to theistic implication because you do not need to employ circular
reasoning and LIMIT science to the study of what is claimed to be
natural...you don't need to limit yourself to materialistic and naturalistic
explanations (which may not exist) because this is circular reasoning -
natural assumptions = natural conclusions with no justification for
natural itself.

There are a number of assumptions which there are no justification for no matter how you look at it, just most people accept these axioms. This applies to the natural sciences and to the supernatural.

What about scientists who take a more logical viewpoint and say that
if the evidence via deduction leads to theistic implication, then theistic
conclusion is actually more scientific than limiting your view of science?

Yet there is never a case of it leading to theistic implication. The mere fact 'we don't know how it happened' does not lead to 'God/some theistic being did it.'

 

[lawtonfogle]

I remember there was at least one instance of God being tested in the Bible, in order to show that this other bunch of people were worshipping the wrong God. Once the test for the other people's God had failed and the test for the Biblical god had succeeded, the ible God guys killed the "false god" people. I'm afraid I can't remember the exact verse.

I remember the story. But this is not scientifically testable evidence unless we consider the Bible a science book, is an even bigger can or worms.

 

[lawtonfogle]

When in comes to inanimate matter, we can validate to a high degree of accuracy many of the scientific laws that govern God's inanimate matter.

But when it comes to animate matter, we can only validate to a high degree of accuracy some of the scientific laws that govern God's created life as it now exists.

Science makes no such great distinction.

 

[metherion]

And thus it does reject the supernatural as an explanation. To exclude from consideration is to reject from consideration.

No, it is not.

The way science EXCLUDES the supernatural is by saying: "The supernatural is not empirically testable, so we can make no claim about it either way, positive or negative."

The way the supernatural would be REJECTED is if science said "There is no supernatural." Such is not the claim of science.

Metherion

 

[lawtonfogle]

No, it is not.

The way science EXCLUDES the supernatural is by saying: "The supernatural is not empirically testable, so we can make no claim about it either way, positive or negative."

Please reread that. You say science makes no claim either way in the very claim which science is making. That is recursive fail.

The way the supernatural would be REJECTED is if science said "There is no supernatural." Such is not the claim of science.

It says 'for as far as we are concerned, the supernatural does not exist (because it cannot be tested)'. If that does not count as rejection, what does?

 

[metherion]

Please reread that. You say science makes no claim either way in the very claim which science is making. That is recursive fail.

Claiming it is not testable is a claim about a quality of it, not its existence.

For example: While she cannot be seen with the human eye, if she exists, the invisible pink unicorn is both invisible AND pink.

I have made no comment about her existence, positive or negative, due the the phrase 'if she exists'. Similarly, in what I said, the statement 'we can make no statement about it' means there is no statement either way about its existence.

It says 'for as far as we are concerned, the supernatural does not exist (because it cannot be tested)'. If that does not count as rejection, what does?

What does is saying outright 'it does not exist.' EG: "Science can't detect it so it doesn't exist". But science doesn't say that, anywhere.

I mean, let's go with another example. An agnostic. Agnostics say 'We don't know if God exists, so we don't say anything one way or the other.' Are they saying God doesn't exist? No. Are they saying He does? No.

Or, say, the Matrix. Are we all in the Matrix? Well, we can't know either way. There would be no testable way for us to figure we're not in it, now, is there? So, are we in the matrix? Well, we can't confirm or deny it. So as far as being in the matrix is concerned, it doesn't exist. Could it? Sure. Could we tell? Nope. If we're in the matrix or the real world, does it matter as far as science goes? Well, either way, we've got consistent laws about the world around us so... not really.

Metherion

 

[gluadys]

And thus it does reject the supernatural as an explanation. To exclude from consideration is to reject from consideration.

Yes, reject as an explanation. That is not the same as rejecting the supernatural per se. It is just to say that science does not/cannot consider supernatural claims.

 

[Mallon]

I may not be able to see UV light with my naked eye, but that doesn't mean I reject the existence of UV light. Similarly, science may not be able to detect the influence of the supernatural, but it doesn't deny the existence of the supernatural.

 

[JusSumguy]

Perhaps I don't understand your terms. By tested to failure, do you mean put thru a test it failed, or never been put thru a test that would specifically fail it?Metherion

This guy splains it better than me.

Are Biologists Willing To Test Evolution?

The Fact and Theory of Evolution

You don’t need to be a scientist to know that there’s a big difference between physics and biology. But you probably do need to be a scientist to be familiar with a subtle, but critical distinction between these two disciplines.

Physicists are very quick to challenge the central theories and assumptions of modern physics. Biologists, however, are unwilling to do the same.

As Jeff Zweerink described yesterday in his TNRTB entry, physicists recently tested one of the fundamental assumptions of general relativity, the Lorentz Invariance principle. Even though general relativity is considered by many to be one of the best-established principles in all of science, physicists seem to delight in any opportunity to prove it wrong.

This situation stands in sharp contrast to the way that evolutionary biologists interact with the theory of evolution. They steadfastly refuse to even entertain the possibility that this paradigm for life’s origin and history might somehow be unfounded.

Evolutionary biologists, in order to avoid any critical evaluation of the validity of biological evolution, hide behind the statement attributed to the famous geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky that

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
​

Yet, one could maintain that nothing in physics makes sense except in light of general relativity (and quantum mechanics). Somehow this doesn’t prevent physicists from ruthlessly pursuing ways to falsify one of the cornerstone ideas in their discipline.


Evolutionary biologists, most certainly, would protest any characterization that intimates at their reluctance to test biological evolution. They maintain that the theory of evolution is subjected to ongoing, critical evaluation.
Evolution is both a Theory and a Fact

In his book, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism paleontologist Niles Eldredge represents most evolutionary biologists when he states that

The common expression ‘evolutionary theory’ actually refers to two rather different sets of ideas: (1) the notion that absolutely all organisms living on the face of the Earth right now are descended from a single common ancestor, and (2) ideas of how the evolutionary process works - Creationists love to gloss over this rather clear-cut, simple distinction between the idea that (1) life has evolved, and the sets of ideas on (2) how the evolutionary process actually works. (page 24)
​

In other words, Eldredge and other evolutionary biologists maintain that evolution is both a fact and a theory. That it occurred is the fact. How it occurred is the theory. Biologists actively debate and critically assess evolution’s mechanism, but they insist this debate shouldn’t be interpreted to indicate that the fact of evolution is on uncertain footing. They see no reason to test that evolution occurred.


Generally, evolutionary biologists point to two main lines of evidence to support evolution’s status as fact. The first is the shared anatomical features possessed by organisms. Biologists use these common characteristics to group organisms into nested clusters or hierarchies.



Evolutionists take this pattern to indicate that life descended with modification from a common ancestor. In other words, they take this to indicate that life evolved. The second line of evidence is the fossil record, which shows that different life-forms existed on Earth at different times in its history and reveals a progression from simple to complex organisms.
But does this evidence necessarily compel evolution? It is a far cry from the quantitative certainty that physicists have about general relativity.


The nested clusters could easily reflect the handiwork of a Creator who chose to employ a common blueprint and reuse many of the same design elements. Accordingly, evolution’s common ancestor is replaced by an archetype that exists in God’s mind. As for the fossil record, again this finds ready explanation. As indicated in the Genesis 1 and Psalm 104 creation accounts, the Creator transformed the planet and brought life into existence in a purposefully progressive fashion. This progression includes the creation of different life-forms at different eras in Earth’s history. Hence, the fossil record’s features find explanation.


If other models can logically account for the data from the fossil record and the patterns observed among living organisms, then why does a segment of the scientific community view that evolution occurred as fact and not a theory? Philip Johnson, one of the founders of the Intelligent Design Movement, argues that the contemporary scientific enterprise is inextricably intertwined with the philosophical position called naturalism.



According to this system of thought, reality exclusively consists of the physical, material universe. Nothing exists beyond the universe. In other words, naturalism rejects the possibility of the supernatural and miracles. This means that science in the naturalistic framework must explain the universe and all phenomena within it exclusively through natural-process cause and effect.


If science is cast within the naturalistic paradigm, then the fossil record, which shows different life forms at different eras and a progression of organisms from simple to complex, must mean that life transformed from one form into another through natural means alone. It means that evolution is a fact. The philosophical assumptions of contemporary science force the fact of evolution, not the evidence at hand, necessarily. Natural process evolution must be a fact, since the philosophy of naturalism, by definition, will not allow supernatural explanations. No other choices are philosophically permitted. Evolution is a fact only if naturalism is embraced.


Other philosophical and theological positions allow for the fact of evolution, but also keep open the possibility that supernatural explanations may account for features of life and aspects of its natural history. For biologists to establish evolution as a fact within this broader context, the theory must withstand the rigors of scientific testing. Within a framework that allows for supernatural causation, that evolution occurred, like all scientific ideas, is provisional and must be constantly evaluated with each new discovery and in juxtaposition to alternative theories.


An approach to science that leaves open the possible involvement of a Creator aligns much more closely to the exemplary practice of physicists in their unending quest to falsify general relativity. A theistic paradigm applied to science spawns an intellectual milieu that allows both the fact and the theory of evolution to be analytically gauged.

Copyright: Reasons.org
Author: Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D.
Source: Click



-

 

[metherion]

*facepalm* That's just another 'similarities, etc can represent a designer just as well as common descent' load of tosh. You can tell from such lines as

Natural process evolution must be a fact, since the philosophy of naturalism, by definition, will not allow supernatural explanations. No other choices are philosophically permitted. Evolution is a fact only if naturalism is embraced.

You can also tell from the term 'evolutionist' that its most likely bunk.

Biologists actively debate and critically assess evolution’s mechanism, but they insist this debate shouldn’t be interpreted to indicate that the fact of evolution is on uncertain footing. They see no reason to test that evolution occurred.

Furthermore, statements like that are pretty much outright lies.

The fact is, evolution makes hundreds and hundreds of predictions that could falsify it, none of which have been shown to do so.

Metherion

 

[John 10:10]

Not too sure what you are saying here.

Is the issue whether species evolve or whether evolution is the process outlined in the theory of evolution? Or some other question entirely.

As far as I can see the only question beyond the purview of science to determine is whether God sustains evolution.

That evolution happens and how it happens are well within the parameters of scientific observation.

What I'm saying is that science "CANNOT" determine to a high degree of accuracy, as it can with the studies of many inanimate materials, if God worked thru life evolving from the first created life form to the various species we can study in the fossil records, or if God created fully formed plant and animal species every step of the way.

We can only study animate life as it exists today, and determine to a high degree of accuracy how plant, animal, and human life works today. Science cannot determine to a high degree of accuracy how animate life came to be or if it evolved by studying the fossil records. Those who believe in Darwin's ToE have repeated their mantra so profusely that they now consider it fact, even believing that it's a determined scientific fact.

Do creatures change over time? They certainly do! Just look at how humans have changed since Noah's family. But we are all still humans with a soul and spirit. I don't see any evidence that humans are somehow evolving into a new species, except the "new creation man" created in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Blessings

 

[The Lady Kate]

What I'm saying is that science "CANNOT" determine to a high degree of accuracy, as it can with the studies of many inanimate materials, if God worked thru life evolving from the first created life form to the various species we can study in the fossil records, or if God created fully formed plant and animal species every step of the way.

And we've been trying to explai to you six ways from Sunday where your mistake is... That science can and has determined to a high degree of accuracy that life has evolved through various stages... the only thing science cannot determine is if God is behind that evolution.

But those of us who have faith don't need science to tell us that.

We can only study animate life as it exists today, and determine to a high degree of accuracy how plant, animal, and human life works today. Science cannot determine to a high degree of accuracy how animate life came to be or if it evolved by studying the fossil records.

Except we can, and we have.

Those who believe in Darwin's ToE have repeated their mantra so profusely that they now consider it fact, even believing that it's a determined scientific fact.

No, it's a well-supported scientific theory... we've struggled to explain the terminology to you, but you've been quite intractible.

Do creatures change over time? They certainly do! Just look at how humans have changed since Noah's family. But we are all still humans with a soul and spirit. I don't see any evidence that humans are somehow evolving into a new species, except the "new creation man" created in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Good thing science deals with things beyond what you personally can see.

 

[John 10:10]

So you know for a certainty that God's created life that shows up in the fossil records evolved through various stages, that God did not create fully formed species every step of the way, and that science has proven this to you to a high degree of accuracy!!!

My friend, you are sadly mistaken, and you do not know how true scientific facts are determined.

 

[The Lady Kate]

So you know for a certainty that God's created life that shown up in the fossil records evolved through various stages, that God did not create fully formed species every step of the way, and that science has proven this to you to a high degree of accuracy!!!

Yep, I know it as well as any human can know something.

My friend, you are sadly mistaken, and you do not know how true scientific facts are determined.

You keep saying that, but you have yet to establish that you know anything of the sort.