gluadys said:
That is because there is only one theory of evolution in biology. The personal religious options of scientists and those interested in science do not change the theory, only how they integrate the theory into their personal metaphysics.
Just as what a juror believes about the guilt or innocence of the accused does not change the evidentiary basis of the charge. A fingerprint on a crowbar used to pry open a window is equally true both for those who consider it proves guilt and those who consider it insufficient to establish guilt.
You bring up some very good points, but I think you either left out or don't see that even scientists impute their beliefs into their work. Not all of their beliefs, but what they assume does get into science. They are necessary, and they are part of what the scientists believe.
I like the court room example. Both lawyers, defense and prosecuting, have the same evidence, both interpret it differently. Have we ever had people go to jail who did not commit the crime? If so, then mistakes are part of the picture, as well as the whole case being dependent on who is the most believable or better speaker.
I suggest it is the same science. There is one piece of evidence and different sides interpreting the evidence that come to different conclusions. The majority rules is not always the best approach in creating your beliefs. One must first decide what they consider to be their standard by which they will judge the various interpretations. I see creationists using the Bible as their standard. I personally don't see anything wrong with this. I honestly don't see how others do see something wrong with this. Especially, when there is 2000+ years of Apostles, teachers, pastors and Jesus Christ who teach us to do this.
I see theistic evolutionists using a naturalistic basis for their beliefs. That is why I said they can be called theistic naturalists, because many believe in God and nature as co-creators. God created nature, nature created everything in nature.
gluadys said:
The same goes for the evidence for evolution and the theory of evolution. They dont change no matter what opinion a person holds about them or what philosophical framework colours ones understanding of them.
Really? Let me point you to a washington post article that shows some scientists doing what you say they don't do.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060802385.html
gluadys said:
I hate the word origins in this context. It is so vague. One needs to be specific about what sort of origins is being discussed. This is also a poor way to describe the function of a theory. A theory does not search for anything. It describes and explains natural phenomena. Theists do not search for origins in God. They affirm creation by God as an article of faith.
Considering who created and how creation happened are two different categories of questions. What divides creationists and TEs is the creationist insistence that God did not use natural means to generate bio-diversity. In particular, God did not use natural means to form the physical being of humanity.
Origins simple means at the point when something comes into existence. Origin of species is looking for when species came into existence. Origin of life is looking for when life came into existence. So science is looking for when and the source of all things. Such as common ancestor, how did the big bang begin, how did life come from non-life, etc.
The Bible says God created life, He is the origin of all life. Yet, science is looking for that origin, and theistic evolutionists are in support for looking for the origin when they so strongly uphold evolution and abiogenesis. In order for evolution to begin - in a science perspective - abiogenesis must have happened somehow. Life must have came from non-life somehow, unless aliens created us, or heaven forbid science says God created us then evolution happened. But science cannot say God created us, they can assert aliens creating as Crick did, but not God. Yet, you cannot uphold alien existence with science.
gluadys said:
This is a theological and hermeneutical question. It does not affect the theory of evolution one way or another. If one accepts that God did use natural means, then it is legitimate to check out what those natural means were. This in no way cancels out belief in creation.
It is much more like saying, I know God made me, and I want to learn about the natural process of conception so that I will understand better how God made me.
Evolution's purpose is not to learn about the species and what they do, that is part of it, but the purpose is to trace back to see where it all began, the origin of it all. Hence, common descent. So, you are saying God created me, but I need to go find out how and who created me.
gluadys said:
I expect the reason you see theism and evolution as contradictory is because you have not established a correct concept of the boundaries of science. As Karl and artybloke have pointed out, you are making category errors that confound theology, metaphysics and science. So you attribute philosophical and theological concepts to evolution which science does not deal with. Once you have pieced out what is and is not science, what is and is not metaphysics, you will be better able to handle each category appropriately.
Are we stating that the theory of evolution is without philosophical ideas? I did not attribute theological concepts to evolution. I stated evolution does not look for God, nor will it declare God, so there is no study of God, hence no theological concepts at all.
Metaphysics is simply a philosophical principle. And philosophy is part of the theory of evolution. It is needed for the assumptions made and to reason for them. It is the investigation of nature by logic and reason. It is philosophy, and it cannot be without it. Science and philosophy go hand in hand, you cannot separate the two.
gluadys said:
The name of Darwins book was not Origin of Life, it was Origin of Species. The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life, but about the relationships of species past and present. The question of the origin of life falls under the category of abiogenesis.
Let me also point out that the fact of abiogenesis is not in doubt. No one, theist or otherwise, doubts that there was no life on the primitive earth and now there is. No one, theist or otherwise, doubts that life was brought into existence from what is not alive. The theist believes that the transition from non-life to life was brought about by an act of God i.e. that God is the author of abiogenesis. The only question remaining is whether God did so by overriding the properties of non-living matter (super-natural means) or by using the properties of non-living matter (natural means).
The scientific exploration of abiogenesis is a search for possible natural pathways of generating life from non-living matter. It has nothing to say one way or another about such natural pathways excluding God as the creator of life. That is not a scientific question and science provides no answer to it.
So, then the question is, what are theistic evolutionists doing to correct the philosophical ideas that go with science? Scientifically, abiogenesis says nothing about God. That is a theist assertion, not a scientific assertion.
What I see is theistic evolutionists spending all their time telling creationists that they are a bunch of idiots and need to go read their text books instead of spending their time reading the Bible. That their interpretation is garbage and the evolutionists interpretation is the right way. I have yet to meet or see one theistic evolutionists who actually spends the majority of their time arguing against the philosophies of science that exclude God by default. Rather, if one goes to the open forum, you will atheists and theists teaming up to give a pounding to anyone who goes against evolution. Now, the theists could be creating a relationship with the atheists at the expense of a believer so that later they can witness, but sinning to witness is not the way Christ taught.
gluadys said:
Category error again. There are no philosophical reasonings for the theory of evolution. The basis of theory is evidence not philosophy. There are philosophical and theological ponderings on the meaning of evolution, but they come after the fact of evolution is established. They are not the basis of the theory, and the theory does not favour one over another.
There are no philosophical reasons for the theory of evolution? Are you sure you want to make that claim? That philosophy comes after the "fact" of evolution? That is a backwards look at science and how it works. Assumptions are the beginning of science and assumptions are a form of a philosophical idea because they require logic and reasoning.
So when you say there are "no philosophical reasonings for the theory of evolution" you are telling me there is no logic and reason for the theory.
I think I agree with you!
gluadys said:
The main error is that you think science is hostile to the very idea of God. Science most certainly can accept the possibility that God is the origin of all life. What it cannot do is establish scientifically that this is so. Nor that it is not so. From surveys I have seen the majority of evolutionists are theistic evolutionists.
That is incorrect to say. I don't think I even said that science is hostile to God, do you have a quote of me saying that?
Yes, from surveys I have seen almost 90% of the United States are True Christians.
gluadys said:
You are restating what I said. The assertion or at least implication that natural=godless is very frequent in creationist posts on this forum. If I have time, I will dig some out for you. Or you might look at all posts by gluadys. I have objected to this line of thought so many times, you are sure to find something.
And yet they do have a problem with humans being a product of evolution. Evolution is also a natural process created and put into motion by God. Why the inconsistency? Why the constant assertion that evolution is incompatible with theismas you, yourself said earlier.
I don't think all of evolution is incompatible, but common descent, pre-Adamic man, all species from one single cell over billions of years just doesn't make sense in my mind. It may work perfectly for you, and that is fine, just doesn't work for me.
I read of Jesus creating things that look as if they have age and history, yet they do not. He can do the same with the universe. I have tried to reconcile a complete mythological account of Genesis and it doesn't make sense to me when I do. It may make perfect sense to you, but not me.
Many think Acts is a purely historical book, yet in it, it says all men came from one man. The New Testament is full of accounts that attribute Genesis to being a historical account of what God did do. For my own faith in Christ, I have no choice but to believe Him and who He has sent to speak for Him.
gluadys said:
Yet they say that evolution is undirected and purposeless and hence cannot be part of Gods creation. Evolution happens. It happens in Gods world. As a natural process it has no internal consciousness of purpose any more than gravity or electricity or radioactivity. But how does that exclude the possibility that God has purposes for evolution?
If that is what God used to create, then God did have a purpose for it. Science mind you says nothing about God creating, nor will it ever attribute creating to God, even in abiogenesis it will look for another source.
gluadys said:
You miss the point. These all show mastery over nature by resorting to super-natural power suspending the ordinary course of nature. Not the type of mastery that is expressed through using natural processes as they are.
I am not against miracles, including the possibility of creating things mature. I am against ignoring the evidence that God did not work this way. Humans have no say over how God chooses to create. We can only look at the evidence in hope of discovering how He chose to create. That evidence does not favour the thesis that God created things in a mature state.
I think you are confusing evidence and interpretation.
gluadys said:
The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life; it is about the relationships of species to each other, past and present. I believe we do know who and what the origin of life is, but that we do not know how life originated. Knowing who created life does not tell us how he did. The how question is what science seeks the answer to. It does not attempt to answer the who question.
Abiogenesis is not a philosophy. It is a fact. Life did come from non-life. For a theist, the generation of life from non-life is an act of God. The open question is whether God used natural or super-natural means.
Again, I don't think you understand what philosophy is. All science is back by philosophy. It has to be to provide reason and logic for the assumptions put forth.
Again, science does not say God is the source of life. It is still looking for the source, even though they most likely have been told God is the source. In their continuing search, after being told, they have refused the idea that God is the source.