How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?

[lawtonfogle]

I disagree. Science doesn't even have the concepts of natural and supernatural.

It knows the concept of empirical. Thus, anything not included under empirical is not considered, thus supernatural events can never be considered as explanations.

 

[lawtonfogle]

God guided evolution is not a scientific statement. That is correct.

But it doesn't make the statement false. A statement doesn't have to be scientific to be true. It just has to be scientific to be part of science.

Which is where the differences between empirical truths and absolute truths (or real truths, ect.) come into play.

Science does not reject supernatural agency. It rejects making supernatural agents & mechanisms part of a scientific explanation.

And since science only deals with scientific explanation, it rejects supernatural agency. This isn't the reject of 'lets test it... oh it is false'. This IS the reject of 'lets tes... no wait, can't test it... ignoring it'.

And that's good. God as a hypothesis not only doesn't work well in science; it is poor theology as well as it undermines God's sovereignty and makes him subject to experimental/observational falsification.

 

[metherion]

You are right, science does not go 'we will assume no guiding intelligence in the case of evolution'. Instead, it goes 'Axiom: All explanations worthy of being considered are natural.' That is to say, it assumes the above in the case of all science.

No. That is wrong. But one word can be changed to make it right.

Change the word ‘worthy’ to ‘capable’. And since science can’t deal with this it isn’t capable of... why look into the question?

Can it say 'and God was the force behind it'? No, it cannot. No empirical evidence can ever lead to that conclusion unless God is empirical.

Exactly right.

Because no position is a default position against the existence there of.

For me, there is no difference in "I do not believe in Zeus (as a deity)" and "I believe Zeus (as a deity) is a false concept".

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO WRONG.

“I have no opinion on X” does not equal “I actively have an opinion against X”.

Metherion

 

[gluadys]

Which is where the differences between empirical truths and absolute truths (or real truths, ect.) come into play.

And since science only deals with scientific explanation, it rejects supernatural agency. This isn't the reject of 'lets test it... oh it is false'. This IS the reject of 'lets tes... no wait, can't test it... ignoring it'.

And, in fact, "ignore" would be a more appropriate term than "reject".

 

[sfs]

I do have a problem with a so-called science that says there's scientific proof to a high degree of accuracy that all life and our existance actually came about thru theistic or any other kind of evolution.

I fully recognize that evolutionists will never give an inch on this point, even those who believe in something called "theistic evolution."

Well, we're unlikely to give an inch until you actually present some justification for your belief, rather than simply repeating it over and over again. As a scientist, I know there is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution. You don't seem to know (or care to know) what that evidence is, yet you still insist that we should join you in concluding that there isn't any evidence. Why should anyone pay any attention to your opinion?

 

[sfs]

And since science only deals with scientific explanation, it rejects supernatural agency.

I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong, no matter how many times you say it. Science can only reject supernatural agency if it can consider supernatural agency, and (as we all agree), it cannot do that.

This isn't the reject of 'lets test it... oh it is false'. This IS the reject of 'lets tes... no wait, can't test it... ignoring it'.

But rejecting and ignoring are two different activities. In science, you reject a hypothesis when you conclude that it is wrong (or at least unlikely to be correct). You don't do that when you ignore a hypothesis; if you are unable to construct a test to distinguish two hypotheses, you simply cannot say anything about them. Those really are different conclusions.

 

[John 10:10]

As a Christian, I will try one last time to share what I believe is the deception of how life somehow evolves, theistic or not, from the first life form to the various species we can observe in the fossil records/bones, and on to the various life forms that exist today.

True science cannot look at dead life forms that existed in fossil records or skeletal bones that are dug up and determine to a high degree of accuracy how or if they evolved, especially if this evolution process required creator God’s involvement.

True science can only look at life forms as they exist today, and determine to a high degree of accuracy how they tick. True science can discover how to take inanimate matter and develop inanimate matter into useful life products. True science can discover how to help sick creatures get well, either thru medicines, surgeries, or learning how to maintain better physical health by what we eat and thru proper exercise.

True science cannot determine to a high degree of accuracy how life forms developed that show up the fossil records or bones that are millions of years old; i.e., true science cannot determine if life evolved thru evolution, theistic evolution, or by instant creation of every life form that God then gave the ability of procreation to.

True science cannot fully determine the how of God’s creation came to be, how the universe then evolved over time from the beginning, and especially how life on earth came to be since God first placed life on planet earth. This knowledge is beyond the purview of scientific discovery.

Godless evolutionists will tolerate somewhat theistic evolutionists, but not to the point of ever allowing theistic evolution in our biology textbooks. Those who believe as I do in the “instant fully-formed creation of every life form that existed” are an anathema to evolutionists because they do not want there to be a Creator God like that, a God to whom they might then be accountable.

My personal opinion is that theistic evolution is nothing more than putting a little sugar/levin on godless evolution, which has no redemptive valve whatsoever in leading sinner man to his Redemptive Creator God.

 

[lawtonfogle]

No. That is wrong. But one word can be changed to make it right.

Change the word ‘worthy’ to ‘capable’. And since science can’t deal with this it isn’t capable of... why look into the question?

So it is a disagreement of mostly semantics then.

Exactly right.



NO NO NO NO NO NO NO WRONG.

“I have no opinion on X” does not equal “I actively have an opinion against X”.

Metherion

This is true in most cases. But when X is 'existence of Y', I see them as the same, at least for me, because if I don't actively have an opinion that Y exist, then I passively have the opinion it does not.

Maybe not everyone does this though.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong, no matter how many times you say it. Science can only reject supernatural agency if it can consider supernatural agency, and (as we all agree), it cannot do that.


But rejecting and ignoring are two different activities. In science, you reject a hypothesis when you conclude that it is wrong (or at least unlikely to be correct). You don't do that when you ignore a hypothesis; if you are unable to construct a test to distinguish two hypotheses, you simply cannot say anything about them. Those really are different conclusions.

I would personally call this (once again) a semantics disagreement.

 

[sfs]

This is true in most cases. But when X is 'existence of Y', I see them as the same, at least for me, because if I don't actively have an opinion that Y exist, then I passively have the opinion it does not.

You really have that presumption? For every possible statement about the existence of something in the universe, if you don't actively have an opinion that it's true, you assume that it's false by default? Do you actively believe that there is a man named John pouring a shot of tequila in Palo Alto, California, right now? Probably not. So you are of the opinion that there is not a man named John pouring tequila? Why? How do you deal with exhaustive probabilities? I am not actively of the opinion that I have any particular HLA type (an important set of blood markers), since there are many alleles at that locus and I have no idea what I have, but it would be pretty silly of me to have the opinion for each of the possibilities that I didn't have it, since I must have some HLA type.

When you roll a die -- before you look, are you of the opinion that the die does not show a 1, does not show a 2, does not show a 3, and so on?

Maybe not everyone does this though.

I find it hard to believe that anyone does this.

 

[sfs]

I would personally call this (once again) a semantics disagreement.

Since the contents of our beliefs about science differs, I fail to see how it could be labeled semantic.

 

[gluadys]

True science cannot look at dead life forms that existed in fossil records or skeletal bones that are dug up and determine to a high degree of accuracy how or if they evolved, especially if this evolution process required creator God’s involvement.

But why do you assert this? There is plenty of evidence in fossils that they evolved. Why do you claim that scientists can make no conclusion from this evidence?

True science can only look at life forms as they exist today, and determine to a high degree of accuracy how they tick. True science can discover how to take inanimate matter and develop inanimate matter into useful life products. True science can discover how to help sick creatures get well, either thru medicines, surgeries, or learning how to maintain better physical health by what we eat and thru proper exercise.

True science also looks at cadavers to learn about the internal structure of living things and to find out what caused them to die. We are not limited to looking only at living things.

True science cannot determine to a high degree of accuracy how life forms developed that show up the fossil records or bones that are millions of years old; i.e., true science cannot determine if life evolved thru evolution, theistic evolution, or by instant creation of every life form that God then gave the ability of procreation to.

What degree of accuracy is a high degree of accuracy? Scientists can examine the various hypotheses about the history of life and determine which theory best accounts for observed evidence and best guides future research through suggestions of what new data to look for. On that basis, the theory of evolution is by far the best explanatory theory.

One might choose to believe that every species represented in the fossil record was an instant creation with no genetic relationship to any other species before or after, but one is left with the question: why did the Creator choose to create species so that it would look so much as if they evolved? If it is important for us to believe each species was an instant creation, why is there no example either among living species or in the fossil record of a species for which instant creation is the best explanation of its origin?

True science cannot fully determine the how of God’s creation came to be, how the universe then evolved over time from the beginning, and especially how life on earth came to be since God first placed life on planet earth. This knowledge is beyond the purview of scientific discovery.

Well, now you are going way outside of any discussion of evolution and even of science.

Godless evolutionists will tolerate somewhat theistic evolutionists, but not to the point of ever allowing theistic evolution in our biology textbooks.

Theistic evolution is already in our biology textbooks.

Those who believe as I do in the “instant fully-formed creation of every life form that existed” are an anathema to evolutionists because they do not want there to be a Creator God like that, a God to whom they might then be accountable.

Yes, dodge the question of evidence by dragging in the irrelevant issue of motivation.

If (as most of us here agree is the case) God exists, everyone is accountable to God whether they want to be or not.

And if (as most of us here agree is the case) species evolved, they evolved no matter what one wants to believe about the Creator.

My personal opinion is that theistic evolution is nothing more than putting a little sugar/levin on godless evolution, which has no redemptive valve whatsoever in leading sinner man to his Redemptive Creator God.
[/FONT]

Since when is science supposed to have redemptive value? It is not the business of science to lead sinners to redemption. That is what the preaching of the gospel is for.

 

[Tiberius]

Theistic evolution doesn't belong in textbooks because the theistic part is not scientific.

 

[Breckmin]

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.'

The FACT is "we DO know how it happened" and so we are not appealing
to ignorance.

The FACT that information comes from an Intelligent Source is NOT an
appeal to ignorance. I would easily assert the Law of Information and
open it up for falsification.

If you can create complex information that is useful from random
processes, THEN you have falsified the Law of Information.

Just as Mike Behe has opened up Intelligent Design for falsification,
so also I would say that the Law of Information is falsifiable.

We DO know where DNA/RNA came from...and the only ignorance is
coming from those who deny theistic implication and "ignore" where
the evidence points to.... it is NOT an appeal to ignorance because
we are NOT claiming we don't know.

This is something that only those who have a false definition for
science have done.

 

[pgp_protector]

The FACT is "we DO know how it happened" and so we are not appealing
to ignorance.

The FACT that information comes from an Intelligent Source is NOT an
appeal to ignorance. I would easily assert the Law of Information and
open it up for falsification.

If you can create complex information that is useful from random
processes, THEN you have falsified the Law of Information.

Just as Mike Behe has opened up Intelligent Design for falsification,
so also I would say that the Law of Information is falsifiable.

We DO know where DNA/RNA came from...and the only ignorance is
coming from those who deny theistic implication and "ignore" where
the evidence points to.... it is NOT an appeal to ignorance because
we are NOT claiming we don't know.

This is something that only those who have a false definition for
science have done.

Any Links to this "Law of Information" I'm a bit tired, and My searching isn't turning up anything.

 

[gluadys]

Theistic evolution doesn't belong in textbooks because the theistic part is not scientific.

So? No one is claiming that "theistic" is a scientific part of "theistic evolution". All of the science of "theistic evolution" is already in biology textbooks, just like all of the science of "theistic chemistry" is already in chemistry texts and all of the science of "theistic physics" is already in physics texts and all of the math of "theistic math" is already in mathematics texts.

The theistic part is in theological texts like the bible.

 

[metherion]

As a Christian, I will try one last time to share what I believe is the deception of how life somehow evolves, theistic or not, from the first life form to the various species we can observe in the fossil records/bones, and on to the various life forms that exist today

But all the evidence shows it does.

True science cannot look at dead life forms that existed in fossil records or skeletal bones that are dug up and determine to a high degree of accuracy how or if they evolved, especially if this evolution process required creator God’s involvement.

But you have not defined ‘true science’, ‘high degree of accuracy’, or explained why ‘true science’ cannot do what you claim it cannot do.

True science can only look at life forms as they exist today, and determine to a high degree of accuracy how they tick. True science can discover how to take inanimate matter and develop inanimate matter into useful life products. True science can discover how to help sick creatures get well, either thru medicines, surgeries, or learning how to maintain better physical health by what we eat and thru proper exercise.

Take out the word ‘only’ and the rest of this is correct.

True science cannot determine to a high degree of accuracy how life forms developed that show up the fossil records or bones that are millions of years old; i.e., true science cannot determine if life evolved thru evolution, theistic evolution, or by instant creation of every life form that God then gave the ability of procreation to.

Again, you have not defined ‘high degree of accuracy’ or explained why say, forensics can work for crimes but not evolution, genetics, and other things.

True science cannot fully determine the how of God’s creation came to be, how the universe then evolved over time from the beginning, and especially how life on earth came to be since God first placed life on planet earth. This knowledge is beyond the purview of scientific discovery.

And why is that?

Godless evolutionists will tolerate somewhat theistic evolutionists, but not to the point of ever allowing theistic evolution in our biology textbooks.

But then again, God can’t be in the science textbooks as God is not scientific. If God and TE did appear in the textbooks, I would cry ‘foul’.

Those who believe as I do in the “instant fully-formed creation of every life form that existed” are an anathema to evolutionists because they do not want there to be a Creator God like that, a God to whom they might then be accountable.

One. There is no evidence for that view.
Two. There is evidence against that view.
Three. There are evolution accepters who accept God.
Four. There are evolution rejecters who also reject God.

Evolution is all about the evidence, and NOTHING about accountability in eternity. Please describe IN DETAIL exactly why you believe people only accept evolution to get out from God’s thumb.

My personal opinion is that theistic evolution is nothing more than putting a little sugar/levin on godless evolution, which has no redemptive valve whatsoever in leading sinner man to his Redemptive Creator God.

Well, it’s a good thing that’s only your opinion. And what a wrong opinion it is!

So it is a disagreement of mostly semantics then.

No, not really, because the two sentences have completely different meanings.

But when X is 'existence of Y', I see them as the same, at least for me, because if I don't actively have an opinion that Y exist, then I passively have the opinion it does not.

But logic doesn’t work that way.

If X is evidence for the existence of Y, and I have no opinion on X, then by exstention I have no opinion on Y. Saying “I don’t know about X” does NOT lead to “Then Y must be wrong”, it leads to “So continuing on that vein of thought I do not know about Y either”.

Metherion

 

[lawtonfogle]

Since the contents of our beliefs about science differs, I fail to see how it could be labeled semantic.

Because it is based on how we each define rejecting and ignoring. I use the words a bit more fluidly than you do, thus semantics.

 

[Ave Maria]

I don't think you can actually become one. I think it just matters what you believe. If you believe that God created the universe using evolution then you sure are wrong but that would still make you a Theistic Evolutionist.

 

[lawtonfogle]

But logic doesn’t work that way.

If X is evidence for the existence of Y, and I have no opinion on X, then by exstention I have no opinion on Y. Saying “I don’t know about X” does NOT lead to “Then Y must be wrong”, it leads to “So continuing on that vein of thought I do not know about Y either”.

Metherion

When did I ever mention X being evidence for something? Maybe I mistyped something somewhere.

I start off by saying either A (using different variables here to reduce possible confusion) does or does not exist. Now, I can take the active stance A does 'not exist', or I can take the passive stance A does not 'exist', which then, because there are only two possible states, leads me to passively being saying that A does 'not exist'. Only when I actively state I do not know am I making a claim where what I am stating the value of if A exist is not set (or more so, it is set, I do not know which one).

As to science, science science is not a person who is able to believe in things. Science is a discipline which works under only empirical evidence. God has no empirical evidence point to Him. So before we even start using science, we can assume God is not going to ever be invoked by science. I think the issue here is we are trying to turn science into a person with beliefs or views, and saying that science has this view or that view.

What I originally stated is that science works from the view point of no God, because, being that God is non-empirical and that science is only empirical, we can see that science cannot ever use God as an answer unless the nature of God changes.