A Challenge for Anti-evolutionists

[lucaspa]

Do you have references for these?

Yes.

IPBE LIBRARY CALVIN Genesis
"Let there be lights". Moses passes onwards to the fourth day, on
which the stars were made. God had before created the light, but he now
institutes a new order in nature, that the sun should be the dispenser of
diurnal light, and the moon and stars should shine by night. And He
assigns them this office, to teach us that all creatures are subject to
his will, and execute what he enjoins upon them. For Moses relates
nothing else than that God ordained certain instruments to diffuse
through the earth, by reciprocal changes, that light which had been
previously created. The only difference is this, that the light was
before dispersed, but now proceeds from lucid bodies; which in serving
this purpose, obey the command of God.
"Let them be for lights." It is well again to repeat what I have said before, that it is not here philosophically discussed, how great the sun is in the heaven, and how great, or how little, is the moon; but how much light comes to us from them. For Moses here addresses himself to our senses, that the knowledge of the gifts of God which we enjoy may not glide away. Therefore, in order to apprehend the meaning of Moses, it is
to no purpose to soar above the heavens; let us only open our eyes to behold this light which God enkindles for us in the earth. By this method (as I have before observed) the dishonesty of those men is sufficiently rebuked, who censure Moses for not speaking with greater exactness. For as it became a theologian, he had respect to us rather than to the stars. Nor, in truth, was he ignorant of the fact, that the moon had not sufficient brightness to enlighten the earth, unless it borrowed from the sun; but he deemed it enough to declare what we all may plainly perceive, that the moon is a dispenser of light to us. That it is, as the astronomers assert, an opaque body, I allow to be true, while I deny it to be a dark body. For, first, since it is placed above the element of fire, it must of necessity be a fiery body. Hence it follows, that it is
also luminous; but seeing that it has not light sufficient to penetrate to us, it borrows what is wanting from the sun. He calls it a "lesser light" by comparison; because the portion of light which it emits to us is small compared with the infinite splendour of the sun.
"16. "The greater light." I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labour whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honoured who have expended useful labour on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. Had he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage. For since the Lord stretches forth, as it were, his hand to us in causing us to enjoy the brightness of the sun and moon, how great would be our ingratitude were we to close our eyes against our own experience? There is therefore no reason why janglers should deride the unskilfulness of Moses in making the moon the second luminary; for he does not call us up into heaven, he only proposes things which lie open before our eyes. Let the astronomers possess their more exalted knowledge; but, in the meantime, they who perceive by the moon the splendour of night, are convicted by its use of perverse ingratitude unless they acknowledge the beneficence of God."

 

[CTD]

Nor can Darwin be classed with ID. Darwin was against the basic principles of ID: that God directly manufactured whole species or parts of them.

No, it is you who misrepresent ID, and by quite a bit. You also fail to account for Darwin's words about a creator breathing life into one or more forms. One, and no creator, has been standard evodogma for decades.

Evolution today allows the possibility of creation by God just as Darwin announced.
''To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.'' SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992.

What we have today are a small group of scientists who are atheists who try to misrepresent evolution as prohibiting God. There are lots of scientists who are atheists, but the vast majority of them recognize the truth of what Gould summarized. A few of them -- Dawkins, PZ Myers, Sagan, Atkins, Wilson -- step beyond what science can say to their particular faith, but misrepresent that faith as evolution.

According to the NCSE, ''judge'' Jones, the ACLU, and several ''expert'' witnesses testifying under oath, any allowance for a creator is ''unscientific'' and would establish a religion. You may claim to speak for evolutionism, but I don't buy it. Actions speak louder than words, and evolutionism is adamant that any creation of life or acknowledgment of the possibility of a creator is stark verboten, unless one means it ''figuratively'' or some trash.

It wasn't my own observation that Darwin's story is ID - it was evolutionists who pointed it out to me. I asked them what changed, what experiment had ruled out any creator. I was told it was ''advances in philosophy''. Whatever... There's no forcing honest answers.

 

[Mallon]

CTD, it sounds to me like your hang-up is with atheism, not evolution. There's no need for the term "evolutionism".

 

[lucaspa]

How life came about bears no real logic period. It's an anomaly that eludes all. Atheists will have nothing to do with it, commonly saying that it has no bearing on evolution. See, they use ToE as a shield as well as a sword.

Evolution deals only with the origin of species after life exists. All theories have limits and assume some things exist already. Relativity assumes the existence of spacetime; chemistry assumes the existence of elements, nucleosynthesis assumes the existence of hydrogen and helium, etc. Evolution assumes the existence of life.

When creationists try to make evolution be abiogenesis, they are arguing theism vs atheism. You make that clear when you wrote:

After all, if life cannot occur naturally, it was God, and I doubt he just set out an RNA sequence and watched life grow like a Chia Pet.

And you are using god-of-the-gaps theology in that you think there is a "gap" between non-living molecules and living cells that cannot be filled by any "natural" process.

Now, what happens when the gap is filled? You seem to think that if there is a natural process to get life instead of direct manufacture by God, then atheism is supported. That's really bad Christian theology and demonstrates one of the dangers of creationism to Christianity and God.

Because, you see, there are processes that will produce living cells from non-living chemicals. One that has been demonstrated in living time is heating amino acids, either dry or at the very high temperatures found in hydrothermal vents. This causes the amino acids to react to form proteins. When water is added to the dry proteins or the amino acid solution made in hydrothermal vents is moved to cooler waters, the proteins spontaneously form cells. The cells 1) metabolize, 2) grow, 3) respond to stimuli and 4) reproduce. These are the 4 characteristics of life. The protocells are alive.

So now the "gap" doesn't exist. By your terminology, life occurs naturally. So where do you think that leaves God? See the danger of god-of-the-gaps theology?

 

[lucaspa]

And so is history, sociology, physics, politics, art, etc.

Physics is part of science, isn't it? Sociology, politics, and art are not "other books" of God. Some of the evidence for God comes in His intervention in human history, but that does not make all history a book of God.

And science, the good ones, certainly has some truth, in the manner that science is true, ie staggering, with great inertia, from false theories to maybe a little less false theories, each time maybe closer to the truth, but never certain. However it has been certainly useful, as evidenced by space travel, this Internet itself, and so on.

Not that much inertia. After all, it didn't take that long for scientists to come to the conclusion that creationism was false.

But on the other hand there are weak sciences too, which includes evolution, some aspects of cosmology, eg inflation, and sub atomic physics; and the latter is increasingly becoming just conjectures and mathematics chasing data, which may or may not be there.

Ah, the fallacy of Guilt by Association. Evolution is not a weak science. Neither is cosmology or inflation. Sub atomic physics is very strong; the data is overwhelming for nearly all the sub atomic particles: mesons, quarks, etc.

There is no problem with weak sciences, eg Einstein theory of relativity was all in his mind until Eddington's observations, which could also have falsify his theory. Until then it was merely a conjecture.

Until then it was an untested theory. Theories are either:
1. Untested
2. Tested and falsified
3. Tested and supported.

Evolution has been repeatedly tested and supported. It is been tested to such a degree that there is hardly any test left to perform for common ancestry and no test left for natural selection. Go to PubMed and enter the term "evolution" and look at all the articles testing evolution. And that is a medical database going back to 1965. It doesn't include the paleontological literature, much of the evolutionary biology literature, or any of the work done prior to 1965.

The worst thing for science is to kill such hypotheses - and anyone having such alternative perspectives - and insist on, and teach only, the orthodoxy, which in this present thread is evolution, especially when the orthodoxy is itself just another hypothesis, albeit one that have lasted longer, and seemingly established, but also unfalsifiable.

Sorry, but you are forgetting that creationism has been tested and falsified. It is a falsified theory. So is ID.

But the evolution hypothesis really begs a big question, namely, why the need to explain for the great diversity of life at all?

Why can't we make the null hypothesis to be that the diversity was there from the beginning, if not a greater diversity, as species have certainly died off.

Moving the goalposts. Evolution asks "what is the origin of species?" In answering that, it also explains the diversity of life. Now, it's obvious why we ask the origin of species. Creationism gives one explanation for the origin of species: direct manufacture by God. So, if evolution begs the question, creationism would be guilty of begging the same question. Sauce for the goose.

No one to date has made any observation of one species becoming another,

Untrue. I have a partial list of such observations that includes over 100 papers. If you want, I can post it.

so where is the evidence even to suggest that the species we know today are different from what they were millions and millions of years ago?

Ever hear of the fossil record? The fossil record shows that species in the past were not the same as the species today. That refutes:

Why not instead the simpler notion that all species have been as they were in the past?

By 1830 scientists had discarded the notion of a single creation. At that time the theory was of successive creations, precisely because the species in the past were so different than the species today.

And to falsify this null hypothesis just show, ie produce evidence and not merely explain, for just any one species, eg giraffes, that it was different, ie a different species, in the past, or will be so in the future.

You pick a species, giraffes, that have a poor fossil record. Let's do human beings. We have transitional individuals that link humans to a different species -- H. ergastor -- in the past. We also have transitional individuals linking H. ergastor to yet a different species -- H. habilis.

But there are other species we can use. Elephants work. Gould published a paper with thousands of transitional individuals linking the current species of Cerion (a snail) to a different species in the past.

The evidence is there; you seem to be unaware of it.

 

[lucaspa]

Lol this just keeps getting better

Logical fallacy of Argument to Ridicule.

 

[CTD]

CTD, it sounds to me like your hang-up is with atheism, not evolution. There's no need for the term ''evolutionism''.

Accuracy. It's more needed than people realize.

 

[Mallon]

Accuracy. It's more needed than people realize.

I don't think you're being accurate, though. You're conflating mechanism (evolution) and agency (creation).

 

[lucaspa]

Not only was the enzyme less efficient than its precursor, but it was also not random.
Why Scientists Should NOT Dismiss Intelligent Design | Uncommon Descent

Just plain wrong. There was no "precursor". It was a reading frame shift mutation. That meant that whatever the DNA sequence previously coded was simply gone. And the generation was indeed "random" in this case. Not a tweaking of an enzyme with a weak activity, but the creation of a new enzyme.

http://eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/ecol525/readings/dodd_1989.pdf

​

The mechanism of the isolation in this system is as yet unknown. Klias et al. (1980) noted for one of their nine combinations that females adapted to one regime (cool, dry) mated more frequently than females from the second regime (warm, humid). Yet in another case,males reared in the warm, humid regime were more active than the cool-adapted males. Overall, there was no significant difference in sexual activity, as measured by numbers of each type mating, in either sex.
​

It appears you do not understand this. Dodd isn't talking about mate selection, but rather the frequency of mating, i.e, how often individuals mated. Not who they mated with. In one population in cool and dry, females mated more frequently than the females in the warm and humid environment. But, the males in the warm and humid environment were more sexually active than the males in the cool, dry environment. So overall, there was no difference in "sexual activity", frequency of mating, between the population in cool and dry vs warm and moist. However, the population in cool and dry did not mate much with the opposite sex of the warm and moist. When they did, the offspring (hybrids) were infertile. This is correspondence to the concept of species: species are populations that cannot mate with other populations to produce fertile offspring. Kilias et al get a new species of Drosophila by having adaptation by natural selection to a new environment.

Dodd got new species of Drosophila by having adaptation by natural selection to a new environment. Dodd now as 3 species of Drosophila: original food media, malt media, and starch media.

"The results of the mating-preference tests between starch-adapted and maltose-adapted populations are given in Table 1. Contingency chi-square tests reveal that 11 out of the 16 combinations show significant deviation from expectations based on random mating. The isolation indexes of these crosses all indicate positive assortative mating, ranging from 0.30 i0.13 to 0.49 + 0.10. The crosses that do not show significant departure from random mating also have positive isolation indexes, ranging from 0.18 + 0.14 to 0.24 i0.13. A one-tailed sign test (Champion, 198 1 pp. 276-280) on the indexes shows that the probability of obtaining 16 positive indexes for 16 crosses is less than 0.00 1."
​

So there was difference in mate selection.

"The results of this study also demonstrate that reinforcement of premating isolating mechanisms through selection is not necessary for the development of significant levels of behavioral isolation. The isolation observed here developed in complete allopatry. The populations were maintained separately at all times, and thus there was no opportunity for reinforcement through selection against hybrids. The isolation is due solely to the process of adaptation to the novel regimes. This process led to consistent changes in all four populations under each regime. Each of the four populations subjected to the same regime acquired the same (or similar) changes in mating behavior, such that flies from different populations under the same regime are not isolated."

Apparently you don't understand what this is saying. It says the speciation was not due to "premating isolating mechanism thru selection" That is, since the populations were not in contact, there was no opportunity to select for mate selection by having infertile hybrids of such cross-mating. "The populations were maintained separately at all times, and thus there was no opportunity for reinforcement through selection against hybrids."

Instead, the reproductive isolation observed "is due solely to the process of adaptation to the novel regimes". IOW speciation happened solely due to the genetic divergence of natural selection in adapting to new diets.

When different populations were placed on the same diet, they also became separate species from the original population, but they became the same species. Here, adaption to the new diets produced the same species in populations that were isolated from one another.

This says it all.

Yes, it does. And it says that evolution by natural selection produced new species! Thank you for providing the quotes that conclusively demonstrate it.

[quoteSo some plants have adapted to more toxic environment. What does that have to do with anything?[/quote]
1. They have new traits not in the original species.
2. They don't interbreed with the original species; they are new species.

So they demonstrate by observation the 2 things evolution does: new traits and new species.

 

[lucaspa]

No, it is you who misrepresent ID, and by quite a bit. You also fail to account for Darwin's words about a creator breathing life into one or more forms. One, and no creator, has been standard evodogma for decades.

Please demonstrate how I misrepresented ID. ID is far more than simply saying "God".

Darwin's comment about a creator breathing life into a few forms, or one, shows that abiogenesis has never been part of evolution. Darwin is assuming the existence of life as a precursor for evolution and that evolution doesn't care how that life originated. Whether zapped by God or created by chemistry, evolution happens to that life.

According to the NCSE, ''judge'' Jones, the ACLU, and several ''expert'' witnesses testifying under oath, any allowance for a creator is ''unscientific'' and would establish a religion. You may claim to speak for evolutionism, but I don't buy it.

1. Since I don't acknowledge the term "evolutionism" as a valid one, I'm certainly not speaking for it.
2. That's not exactly what NCSE, Judge Jones, or the ACLU stated. The NCSE has very carefully kept neutral about the existence of God and whether God created. What they say is that insisting on direct action by a creator in this instance would be promoting a religion. It would also be "unscientific" because creationism is a is falsified theory. Therefore it's "unscientific" to teach it as valid. Judge Jones specifically commented on this in his decision with regard to ID. Because science is agnostic, and because evolution is sufficient as a material cause, adding the additional material cause of direct manufacture by God would be promoting a particular religion and thus violate the Establishment Clause if it were taught in public school science class.

Let me add this. It is also unConstitutional to teach evolution as atheism. If you know of a public school K-12 science class where this is being done, please inform me. I will inform the NCSE so we (I am a member of NCSE) can get the practice stopped.

Actions speak louder than words, and evolutionism is adamant that any creation of life or acknowledgment of the possibility of a creator is stark verboten, unless one means it ''figuratively'' or some trash.

Sorry, but the head of the NCSE disagrees. She did so in a speech to atheists.
" In late 1995, the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) issued a statement to its members and the public concerning the importance of evolution to biology teaching. Part of the statement defined evolution:

'The diversity of life on earth is the result of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments. '
...
When the NABT's board convened at its annual meeting in Minneapolis in October 1997, members' initial reaction was that creationists were trying to get them to change the statement, and they weren't about to knuckle under to that sort of pressure. They voted at the end of a 9-hour meeting, after only a brief discussion, not to change the statement.
Why is this story relevant to my receiving this award? You may be surprised to hear that after I arrived at the NABT meeting, I encouraged the board to do as the theologians asked and drop "unsupervised" and "impersonal". I'm pleased to say that the board did discuss the issue at greater length and ultimately altered the statement by dropping the two words. ...
"The essence of scientific testing is the ability to hold some conditions constant.To test whether putting fertilizer on my petunias will make them grow bigger flowers, I have to hold constant such things as amount of water, sunlight, weeds, and so on--to control for these factors. Testing means holding some things constant and varying others.
Now we get down to the nitty-gritty of science and religion, and why I lobbied to take the words "impersonal" and "unsupervised" out of the NABT statement. Consider: If to test something scientifically requires the ability to hold constant certain effects, this means that omnipotent powers cannot be used as part of scientific explanations. Logically, if there are omnipotent powers in the universe, it is impossible to hold their effects constant, to "control" them in the scientific sense. An omnipotent power could interfere, or not interfere, or interfere but make it look like it's not interfering--that's omnipotence for you!
So science must be limited to using just natural forces in its explanations.This is sometimes referred to as the principle of methodological materialism in science: we explain the natural world using only matter; energy, and their interactions (materialism). Scientists use only methodological materialism because it is logical, but primarily because it works. We don't need to use supernatural forces to explain nature, and we get farther in our understanding of nature by relying on natural causes.
Because creationists explain natural phenomena by saying "God performed a miracle," we tell them that they are not doing science. This is easy to understand. The flip side, though, is that if science is limited by methodological materialism because of our inability to control an omnipotent power's interference in nature, both "God did it" and "God didn't do it" fail as scientific statements.
Properly understood, the principle of methodological materialism requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act. I could say, speaking from the perspective of my personal philosophy, that matter and energy and their interactions (materialism) are not only sufficient to understand the natural world (methodological materialism) but in fact, I believe there is nothing beyond matter and energy. This is the philosophy of materialism, which I, and probably most humanists, hold to. I intentionally added "I believe" when I spoke of my personal philosophy, which is entirely proper. "I believe," however; is not a phrase that belongs in science.
We philosophical materialists may all be methodological materialists, but the converse isn't true. Gregor Mendel was a methodological materialist who didn't accept the philosophy of materialism. I think we make a grave error when we confuse philosophical views derived from science--even those we sup port--with science itself."
Science and Religion, Methodology, and Humanism, Eugenie C Scott, NCSE Executive Director; Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18: 15-17, Mar/Apr. 1998.

Is that clear enough for you? If not, we can discuss any part that is unclear.

That, BTW, refutes your idea of "evolutionism" in the NCSE.

It wasn't my own observation that Darwin's story is ID - it was evolutionists who pointed it out to me. I asked them what changed, what experiment had ruled out any creator. I was told it was ''advances in philosophy''. Whatever... There's no forcing honest answers.

Then they were in error. ID is essentially Special Creation -- God manufacturing species or parts of species in their present form. Darwin argued against that theory thruout Origin of Species. ID is not simply "God". It is a specific way in which God creates.

Darwin, therefore, is not ID. But it equally is not atheism. Darwin was the first of the theistic evolutionists.

 

[CTD]

I find it noteworthy that yesterday's deist had more respect for his creator, and the resultant creation than today's so-called ''theistic evolutionist''.

''The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability.

The ambitious, the sensual, have hardly time for reasoning, and for embracing a bad system; they have other things to do than comparing Lucretius with Socrates. That is how things go among us.

That was not how things went with the Roman senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous, who ruined the republic. Epicureanism existed under the emperors: the atheists of the senate had been rebels in the time of Sylla and Caesar: under Augustus and Tiberius they were atheist slaves.

I would not wish to have to deal with an atheist prince, who would find it to his interest to have me ground to powder in a mortar: I should be quite sure of being ground to powder. If I were a sovereign, I would not wish to have to deal with atheist courtiers, whose interest it would be to poison me: I should have to be taking antidotes every day. It is therefore absolutely necessary for princes and for peoples, that the idea of a Supreme Being, creator, ruler, rewarder, revenger, shall be deeply engraved in people's minds.'' - Voltaire

Even a prince among scoffers can open his eyes and acknowledge evidence. He posits no dormant sparker-of-bangs, no indifferent, uncaring, uninvolved sluggard. To be sure, he told some whoppers about the historical evidence, but he didn't deny observation and reason.

 

[Mallon]

I find it noteworthy that yesterday's deist had more respect for his creator, and the resultant creation than today's so-called ''theistic evolutionist''.

In what way does deism profess more respect for a creator than does evolutionary creationism? Do you think that evolution -- as a natural process -- in some way excludes God, as do deists?

 

[CTD]

I don't think you're being accurate, though. You're conflating mechanism (evolution) and agency (creation).

I most certainly am not conflating. You're hallucinating, and perhaps hoping it's contagious.

The term 'evolutionism' refers to the beliefs and teachings of evolutionists. Anyone competent with the conventions of the English language understands how prefixes and suffixes work. If you prefer, I can consider you incompetent, as you have presupposed the readership to be.

 

[Mallon]

I most certainly am not conflating. You're hallucinating, and perhaps hoping it's contagious.

The term 'evolutionism' refers to the beliefs and teachings of evolutionists. Anyone competent with the conventions of the English language understands how prefixes and suffixes work. If you prefer, I can consider you incompetent, as you have presupposed the readership to be.

You're using the term "evolutionism" as referring to more than just descent with modification, though. You're using it to mean descent with modification in the absence of God's providence, which is not what evolution teaches. I agree with you in rejecting the theological ramifications of the the latter, but that doesn't make the science of evolution bogus in any way. The theory of evolution (minus the philosophical "-ism") is still completely valid. You're conflating the science of evolution with the philosophical/theological baggage that some tie to it.

 

[CTD]

In what way does deism profess more respect for a creator than does evolutionary creationism? Do you think that evolution -- as a natural process -- in some way excludes God, as do deists?

Deists exclude God? The one I quoted doesn't. I could quote others, but who wants to see that?

I've not encountered the term 'evolutionary creationism' before. Would you mind explaining what distinguishes it from the commonly-discussed classifications and beliefs? I shouldn't have expected many more compromises to be available, and I certainly can't address an unknown subject. Also, is it subject to change on a whim as is evolutionism? That'd be one of my first guesses.

 

[Mallon]

Deists exclude God? The one I quoted doesn't. I could quote others, but who wants to see that?

The definition of deism is the belief that God created the world long ago, but has since remained hands-off, allowing the world to run its own course naturally. Is this a position you agree with? Do you believe that natural processes work to the exclusion of God's constant providence? If not, then why do you single out a natural process like evolution as being godless?

I've not encountered the term 'evolutionary creationism' before.

It's a better term for "theistic evolution". It emphasizes the agency of God's creation over the mechanism of evolution.

 

[CTD]

You're using the term ''evolutionism'' as referring to more than just descent with modification, though.

What do you mean 'though'? There are a whale of a lot of beliefs held by evolutionists; of course it refers to more than one sloganized concept.

You're using it to mean descent with modification in the absence of God's providence, which is not what evolution teaches. I agree with you in rejecting the theological ramifications of the the latter, but that doesn't make the science of evolution bogus in any way. The theory of evolution (minus the philosophical "-ism&quot is still completely valid. You're conflating the science of evolution with the philosophical/theological baggage that some tie to it.

I cannot even imagine how to untangle ''science of evolution'' into anything meaningful. When 'science' is employed as an euphemism, it is customary to mean 'atheism' or 'evolutionism'. These don't fit well in the context presented. ''The evolutionism of evolution'' - see what I mean?

Your objection seems to be that I'm not employing the term in a meaningless enough manner to suit your taste. I would plead guilty to the charge, and thank you for presenting an example of the style you prefer. I shall be declining to employ it.

 

[lucaspa]

I find it noteworthy that yesterday's deist had more respect for his creator, and the resultant creation than today's so-called ''theistic evolutionist''.

''The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability.

However, theistic evolutionists understand the creation and the origin of evil. Nor do they use the hypothesis of "eternity of things". Theistic evolutionists acknowledge that the universe had a beginning: the Big Bang. Theistic evolutionists, of course, believe that God caused the Big Bang.

I tend to agree with Voltaire about the reasoning ability of atheists.

I would not wish to have to deal with an atheist prince, who would find it to his interest to have me ground to powder in a mortar: I should be quite sure of being ground to powder.

He doesn't give a reason for this. Why would an atheist prince find it in his interest to hurt Voltaire. That would be so only if the atheist prince felt the compulsion to convert everyone to his faith.

Of course, I would not want to deal with a very religious theist prince, either. The history of Christianity shows that theist princes were every bit as capable of grinding people to powder. Look at Charlemagne and the Saxons as just one example. Therefore Voltaire's conclusion:
"It is therefore absolutely necessary for princes and for peoples, that the idea of a Supreme Being, creator, ruler, rewarder, revenger, shall be deeply engraved in people's minds.'' - Voltaire

doesn't follow from the evidence. It sounds like Voltaire is using the Supreme Being as a mitigator of political power. The idea is that the prince and people will restrain themselves from some acts because they fear that the Supreme Being will be "the revenger".

Voltaire is speaking, of course, only from the perspective of an absolute monarchy. He is not considering the mitigation of abuse of power that comes from the separation of power as practiced in democracies.

Even a prince among scoffers can open his eyes and acknowledge evidence.

What evidence? Voltaire offers none. He is making unsupported speculation and assertion. In some cases, his speculations and assertions are contradicted by the evidence.

He posits no dormant sparker-of-bangs, no indifferent, uncaring, uninvolved sluggard.

And neither is theistic evolution. You don't seem to understand just how involved God is as sustainer of the universe. But then, you are working under god-of-the-gaps. Since, in your view, God exists only in miracle, you would find it "dormant" if God is not working by miracle.

The problem does not lie with theistic evolution, but with the unChristian, unBiblical, and dangerous theology of god-of-the-gaps.

 

[Mallon]

What do you mean 'though'? There are a whale of a lot of beliefs held by evolutionists; of course it refers to more than one sloganized concept.

So you're arguing that your problem isn't so much with the mechanism of evolution, per se, but with the belief that it proceeds without God. If so, then I -- and everyone here -- agree. This is a Christian sub-forum, after all. But then why not just say that your problem is with atheism? That's what you're really arguing against, isn't it?

I cannot even imagine how to untangle ''science of evolution'' into anything meaningful. When 'science' is employed as an euphemism, it is customary to mean 'atheism' or 'evolutionism'.

Why are you conflating science with atheism? What's atheistic about science?

Your objection seems to be that I'm not employing the term in a meaningless enough manner to suit your taste.

I guess my argument is that I have no idea what you mean because you're using terms in ways that no one else uses them. Again, you're regularly conflating agency with mechanism, which only creates confusion in discussions like this.

 

[CTD]

The definition of deism is the belief that God created the world long ago, but has since remained hands-off, allowing the world to run its own course naturally.

Perhaps it is today - It certainly wasn't the case in the 18th century. What you describe is the belief I always see claimed by people labeling themselves 'theistic evolutionists', the belief which regular evolutionists tolerate on account of their own low numbers - for now.

Is this a position you agree with? Do you believe that natural processes work to the exclusion of God's constant providence? If not, then why do you single out a natural process like evolution as being godless?

I don't agree with any scripture-denying gobble-de-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or any compromise. I shall laugh at the suggestion likely for some time.

It's a better term for theistic evolution. It emphasizes the agency of God's creation over the mechanism of evolution.

That's not gonna win friends. Have you tried it out elsewhere, or is it spontaneous?