Are Theistic Evolutionists Intellectually Schizophrenic?

[Crusadar]

"People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together. But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic. Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process.” David Oldroyd, The Weekend Review, March 20 & 21, 1993, p.5.

 

[Vance]

Mr. Oldroyd is wrong when he says that biological theory does not "allow" for Divine Guidance. It is true that the biological theory of evolution may not *require* any sort of Divine guidance, any more than the theory of gravity or the process of photosynthesis, but it definitely does nothing to preclude it.

I think gravity is a good analogy. Just because you can explain the theory of gravity without reference to God does not mean you are precluded from believing that God established gravity in the universe. In fact, I do believe that. I guess that would make me a Gravitationalist. I believe that everything that science tells me about gravity is very likely true. I just happen to believe that God is the creator of all things, and so believe he is responsible for the process that science describes as gravity.

So, no.

 

[Ark Guy]

What the Theo-Evo sect doesn't realize is that the bible talks of a special creation...not evolution.

ref: The bible.

 

[Didaskomenos]

The Bible also talks of human sacrifice to YHWH and of a flat earth. And what the YEC sect doesn't realize is that there is nothing less special about the processes God used to create the world than a premise of instantaneous generation of the universe.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

And what do you personaly think of this statement Crusadar? Or are you going to hide behind a quote so you can avoid slinging insults personaly?

Personaly, Christians must be a little schizophrenic thinking that the loving God of the NT can be the same as the sacrificial God of the OT... Nice to know that we all are a little nuts.

 

[Crusadar]

And what do you personaly think of this statement Crusadar? Or are you going to hide behind a quote so you can avoid slinging insults personaly?

Personaly, Christians must be a little schizophrenic thinking that the loving God of the NT can be the same as the sacrificial God of the OT... Nice to know that we all are a little nuts.

I think the man is absolutely correct. The “intellectually schizophrenic” referred to is that by adding God only when convenient and not as the sole designer and sustainer of all creation - how do we know that there is a God who only stands outside and guides the evolutionary process? If that were the case, then the only way you would know that such a being truly exists is through what has been revealed in the Scriptures – but hey scripture gives us a different account of creation, so who is right? Man’s interpretations of the evidence or the written account of what God has done?

No one is hiding lewis, I would say that those who believe that God used evolution are the one's that are hiding. They are hiding behind their sacred cow of evolution insisting that that is how God created. Of course not realizing that the nonbeliever also believes in evolution but not in God. There is something quiet wrong when atheists believe in the same thing you do. Also with the absoulute authority of God's word on my side I have no fear to go into spiritual battle with anyone as my sword is always sharp - so bring it on, for I do this only for God's glory.

 

[Plan 9]

"People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together. But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic. Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process.” David Oldroyd, The Weekend Review, March 20 & 21, 1993, p.5.

I'm afraid I don't understand this quote, due to his use of the term "schizophrenic".

 

[Crusadar]

Vancesaid: Mr. Oldroyd is wrong when he says that biological theory does not "allow" for Divine Guidance. It is true that the biological theory of evolution may not *require* any sort of Divine guidance, any more than the theory of gravity or the process of photosynthesis, but it definitely does nothing to preclude it.

So tell us true believers of God's word (creationists if you prefer) where the evidence for God's existence lay in the evolutionary process.

I think gravity is a good analogy. Just because you can explain the theory of gravity without reference to God does not mean you are precluded from believing that God established gravity in the universe. In fact, I do believe that. I guess that would make me a Gravitationalist. I believe that everything that science tells me about gravity is very likely true. I just happen to believe that God is the creator of all things, and so believe he is responsible for the process that science describes as gravity.

You make very little spiritual sense here vance, perhaps you have neglected your spirituality in search of something else less incredulous to believe. The law of gravity is no substitute for the Word God so it would seem you believe not God but His creation - is that not what the pantheist also believe?

So, no.

I know you would object.

 

[Plan 9]

You make very little spiritual sense here vance, perhaps you have neglected your spirituality in search of something else less incredulous to believe. The law of gravity is no substitute for the Word God so it would seem you believe not God but His creation - is that not what the pantheist also believe?

Are you saying that you don't believe that God is the creator of the process we call gravity???

 

[Plan 9]

Also Crusader, please define "intellectually schizophrenic"?

 

[lucaspa]

"People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together. But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic. Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process.” David Oldroyd, The Weekend Review, March 20 & 21, 1993, p.5.

Ah, yes. Another atheist who wants to use evolution to deny theism. And you want to let him! Shame on you, Crusadar.

There are at least two ways that God can interfere with evolution and be indectectable to science. Both mecahnisms have been discovered by atheists, so we cannot say that it is apologists seeking to find a gap.

1. Richard Dawkins realizes that God can introduce specific mutations into a population for specific morphological forms He may want. R Dawkins, Climbing Mt. Improbable, pp 80- 82. Full quote upon request.

2. Daniel Dennett realizes that God can engage in artificial selection on a population that we would not be able to tell from natural selection. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, pp. 317-318

Atheists don't like theistic evolution any more than you do, Crusadar. And for the same reason: they don't want any way for people to accept science and remain theistic.

I find it amusing to see you using atheistic arguments so frequently. Are you sure you're not an atheist working undercover?

 

[Plan 9]

Ah, yes. Another atheist who wants to use evolution to deny theism. And you want to let him! Shame on you, Crusadar.

There are at least two ways that God can interfere with evolution and be indectectable to science. Both mecahnisms have been discovered by atheists, so we cannot say that it is apologists seeking to find a gap.

1. Richard Dawkins realizes that God can introduce specific mutations into a population for specific morphological forms He may want. R Dawkins, Climbing Mt. Improbable, pp 80- 82. Full quote upon request.

2. Daniel Dennett realizes that God can engage in artificial selection on a population that we would not be able to tell from natural selection. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, pp. 317-318

Atheists don't like theistic evolution any more than you do, Crusadar. And for the same reason: they don't want any way for people to accept science and remain theistic.

I find it amusing to see you using atheistic arguments so frequently. Are you sure you're not an atheist working undercover?

I would like to read the full quote, please; if you don't mind? *wags tail*

 

[lucaspa]

I think the man is absolutely correct. The “intellectually schizophrenic” referred to is that by adding God only when convenient and not as the sole designer and sustainer of all creation - how do we know that there is a God who only stands outside and guides the evolutionary process?

That "stands outside" contradicts the idea "sustainer of all creation".

I submit that you are accepting the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God. IOW, if there is a "natural" process then God is absent. That goes totally against the basic beliefs of Christianity. Theistic evolution accepts that God is part of all the universe. That indeed God is the sustainer. If God ever withdrew His countenance from the universe, all the "natural" processes would stop.

It is ironic that Darwin understood Christianity a lot better than creationists. In the Fontispiece of Origin is the quote:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion

If that were the case, then the only way you would know that such a being truly exists is through what has been revealed in the Scriptures – but hey scripture gives us a different account of creation, so who is right? Man’s interpretations of the evidence or the written account of what God has done?

You mean you don't know God exists thru personal experience of Him? Yes, the scriptures give at least two different accounts of creation.

So who is right? Both. Scripture gives you the who and why of creation as inspired by God to the human authors. Science gives you the how of creation as written by God in His Creation.

What you want, Crusadar, is science to tell you God exists. But since you think like an atheist, you can only science to tell you God exists if you have gaps in the "natural" processes; that puts you up against both science and Christianity. The Christian doctrine of creation says there shouldn't be such gaps.

Of course not realizing that the nonbeliever also believes in evolution but not in God. There is something quiet wrong when atheists believe in the same thing you do.

1. So what if the atheist believes in evolution but not in God?
2. How can there by something wrong about atheist believing the same thing you do when you believe the same thing atheists do? As I say, you believe the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God.

Also with the absoulute authority of God's word on my side I have no fear to go into spiritual battle with anyone as my sword is always sharp - so bring it on, for I do this only for God's glory.

1. You don't have "the absolute authority of God's word". You have your authority of what you say God's word is. Since you aren't God, you don't have much authority. Also, since God wrote two books, the Bible does not have priority over the other one. Read the first quote in my signature.

2. Whatever the reason you think you do this for, the effect of your actions is to destroy Christianity. How can that be for God's glory?

 

[Ark Guy]

The Bible also talks of human sacrifice to YHWH and of a flat earth. And what the YEC sect doesn't realize is that there is nothing less special about the processes God used to create the world than a premise of instantaneous generation of the universe.

A flat earth? This sounds like more fabricated anti-bible rhetoric.

No where does the bible say the earth is flat.

 

[Ark Guy]

Crusader you are so right.

The Thiestic Evo Sect really are “intellectually schizophrenic”

As another example...they pick and choose miracles.

They pick the miracle of the resurrection...and then not choose the six day creation performed by their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Both have been shown to be scientifically impossible but evolutionISM forces you to be “intellectually schizophrenic”

 

[Crusadar]

Are you saying that you don't believe that God is the creator of the process we call gravity???

What I don't believe is man's interpretion of the evidence (that is evolution)- when obviously scripture tells us something quite different. Also I am a creationist, so I have no problems with God creating all the naturalistic laws which govern the universe (including gravity) through an act of instantaneous creation and not the long drawn out process some may want to convince us all to believe - which by the way isn't going to happen.

 

[Crusadar]

lucaspa said: Ah, yes. Another atheist who wants to use evolution to deny theism. And you want to let him! Shame on you, Crusadar.

There are at least two ways that God can interfere with evolution and be indectectable to science. Both mecahnisms have been discovered by atheists, so we cannot say that it is apologists seeking to find a gap.

Sure there are, if you disregard the Genesis as the foundational book to every other book in the Bible.

It astounds me the spiritually baseless long windedness that you put forth. And yet you still deny Christ as Lord and Savior for you mention nothing of Him in your posts and then you have the gumption of accusing someone else of not being Christian?

I find it amusing to see you using atheistic arguments so frequently. Are you sure you're not an atheist working undercover?

It seems that is all you find of your faith in God to be lucas, a source of amusement and nothing more. Belief in God is not simply shown by a man stating that he believes in a creed and that will grant him eternal life - he must live his faith.

Undercover atheist? Please, would an atheist proclaim that Jesus Christ is his Lord and Savior, and live for Christ in everything that he does? You see in a forum like this you can claim to be whoever you want, only a true believer will reveal his faith in God through his public confession of faith in Christ - something I have not even remotely seen in any of your posts. Just from posts alone, tell me who is more likely an atheist candidate the one who mentions nothing of Christ as Lord and Savior or the one who speaks everything of Him?

 

[Plan 9]

The Thiestic Evo Sect really are “intellectually schizophrenic”

Both have been shown to be scientifically impossible but evolutionISM forces you to be “intellectually schizophrenic”

Ark Guy, you've used the expression "intellectually schizophrenic" twice in one post.

Would you like to take a stab at defining it, please?

 

[Vance]

YEC's just don't seem to be able to (or want to) grasp the concept here.

I believe the truths set out in Genesis are essential to understanding the whole Bible.

I believe the Bible is the holy Word of God to us today.

I believe God could have created the universe in an instant (not even six 24-hour days).

None of these beliefs are in the least bit hampered by believing that God could have created through the process of evolution. If you believe God can choose to take six 24-hour days when He could have done it instantly, how is this different than believing He took billions of years when He could have done it in an instant. Since time is nothing to God, it is exactly the same degree of faith in His omnipotence.

Nothing in evolutionary thought has any negative impact on my belief in everything the Bible tells me.

I think your interpretation is wrong, I think your interpretation is wrong. Fine. What I find highly offensive and insulting is when you say your interpretation is "obvious". It isn't by a long shot.

 

[lucaspa]

I would like to read the full quote, please; if you don't mind? *wags tail*

And it's such a cute tail! OK

"Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. One stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss that they do about the "randomness" of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection, the other side of the process. It is not necessary that mutation should be random in order for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance. ...
One could imagine a theoretical world in which mutations were biased toward improvement. Mutations in this hypothetical world would be non-random not just in the sense that mutations induced by X-rays are non-random: these hypothetical mutations would be systematically biased to keep one jump ahead of selection and anticipate the needs of the organism ...
Darwinians wouldn't mind if such providential mutations were provided. It wouldn't undermine Darwinism, though it would put paid to its claims for exclusivity: a tailwind on a transatlantic flight can speed up your arrival in an agreeable way, and this doesn't undermine your belief that the primary force that got you home is the jet engine." R Dawkins, Climbing Mt. Improbable, pp 80- 82.

"Indeed, all the biologists I have queried on this point have agreed with me that there are no sure marks of natural, as opposed to artificial, selection. In chapter 5, we traded in the concept of strict biological possibility and impossibility for a graded notion of biological probability, but even in its terms, it is not clear how one could grade organisms as 'probably' or 'very probably' or 'extremely probably' the products of artificial selection...It would be foolhardy, however, for any defender of neo-Darwinism to claim that contemporary evolution theory gives one the power to read history so finely from present data as to rule out the earlier historical presence of rational designers -- a wildly implausible fantasy, but a possibility after all." Darwin's Dangerous Idea, pp. 317-318