Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Evolution

[Jase]

Not even science claims that evolution is a fact.

Yes it does.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.


That evolution occurs and has occurred is a fact among the scientific community. The mechanisms of how that process took place is what is included in the Theory of Evolution.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes it does.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.


That evolution occurs and has occurred is a fact among the scientific community. The mechanisms of how that process took place is what is included in the Theory of Evolution.

That's because it's an a priori assumption, it comes before evidence, it applies to all life whether it has been discovered or not.

Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. (Prof. Robert Weinberg, MIT)​

That's not science, it's supposition.

 

[Assyrian]

It goes back further then that:

• ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD) "But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man"
• TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD) "And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM, then, as in the flesh we were made to DIE IN ADAM, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ."
• ORIGEN (c. 244 AD) "IN ADAM ALL DIE, and THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]."

The Early Church Fathers, every Christian tradition and the New Testament writers all understood Adam to be our first parent. I'm not pulling this out of my hat and you know full well that your interpretation of the Genesis accounts did not exist until the advent of Darwinism.

You are certainly pulling the NT writers claim out of your hat. As for the church fathers, you have not addressed my point that it is a fallacious Appeal to Antiquity, and an inconsistent one at that, since you haven't repudiated your protestant revisionism and returned to the Catholic Church or the Orthodox. Of course Luther and Calvin were right to overturn tradition and go back to scripture. Your problem is embracing the revised theology of the Reformation while appealing here to the absolute authority of tradition and the Church Fathers.

Your hermeneutics are flawed and fallacious, when the Scriptures are using a metaphor it is almost always indicated in the immediate context.

Nah, it is just that you are only able to recognise passages are metaphors where it is clearly indicated in the immediate context. You have just illustrated this beautifully over in your thread Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism, where you didn't realise Jesus being 'the light shining in the darkness' was a metaphor. Of course you don't take it literally, you wouldn't for a minute think Jesus saved Joseph a small fortune in lamp oil lighting up the carpentry shop when he worked there. You don't take it literally, you just think you are taking it literally. And because you think all these passages are literal, you come to the strange conclusion metaphors are almost always indicated in the immediate context

In the case of Adam the passage in Genesis is clearly understood to be an historical narrative, not a metaphor for humanity.

Yes I know you assume it is a historical narrative. Yet God the potter making people from clay is a very common biblical metaphor, everywhere else this is interpreted metaphorically. Of course the very same imagery in Genesis can't possible be yet another instance of this very common biblical metaphor.

Throughout the New Testament when Adam is described as and understood to be created, not evolved from predecessors.

Is this you assuming you know how the NT writers understood Adam?

That is not an argument from antiquity

Of course not. This is looking at scripture, eisegesis of course, but your understanding of scripture none the less. The fallacious Appeal to Antiquity is when you try to answer a discussion about scripture by claiming we must follow the traditions of the (church) fathers.

(an expression you made up)

Let me google that for you

but an appeal to the absolute authority of Scripture. You don't get to dismiss what you don't believe about the Bible by labeling it a metaphor, your problem is that you don't believe the Genesis account, not that it's too old to be literal.

And yet the bible is full of metaphors, what is wrong with understanding biblical metaphors as metaphors, why ever would a follower of Jesus Christ who loved to teach in parables and metaphors think the only way to believe the bible is to take it literally?

I'm not chasing this this around the mulberry bush with you. You are mixing metaphor with historical narratives and it's a deeply flawed 19th century philosophy, not a sound hermeneutic of the clear testimony of Scripture.

So all you can do is claim this very common biblical metaphor is being used literally in Genesis, you can't show that it is, or explain why this is the one place in the bible where this common biblical imagery is literal.

There is no indication that Moses is using 'Adam' as a metaphor,

How about Genesis 5:2 where Adam is is explained as the name God gave the people he created, male and female, and not just the name of an individual? Gen 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name “Adam,” in the day when they were created.
How about Genesis 6 where the flood is describes as God destroying Adam, even though Adam is supposed to have died before the flood
Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, “I will wipe Adam, whom I have created from the surface of the ground; Adam, along with animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."
Of course you will be hard pressed to find a translation that translates adm as Adam, but the context is clearly talking about the creation, God creating and making adm and all the animals and birds.

And of course we know Moses used the fictional character Jeshurun as a metaphor for the Israelites and told their story as an extended metaphor in the hymn of Jeshurun in Deuteronomy 32&33

Paul never did

Apart from telling us Adam was a figure of Christ?

and Jesus never did.

Jesus never mentioned Adam and Eve, the nearest you have is quoting the creation stories in Genesis, not to teach a literalist interpretation of the creation accounts, but as a lesson about marriage and divorce.

Your awkward insistence that this is some kind of a clay metaphor is absurd and fails every test of Scripture.

’Some kind of clay metaphor’? You mean the very common biblical potter and clay metaphor?

Mark:Paul always speaks of Adam as the first parent of humanity,
Assyrian: Where does he say that? Don't you get embarrassed quoting 2Peter 3 while misrepresenting what Paul says?

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important

OK so Paul didn’t speak of Adam as the first parent of humanity.

but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

Jesus didn’t mention Adam and Eve, he didn’t mention the marriage of Adam and Eve, he did however quote Genesis as a lesson in marriage in divorce for us. You are reading things into scripture, thinking because you interpret Genesis that way, then if Jesus quoted the passage he must interpret it the way you do. That is eisegesis. Your quote about fasting is Basil not scripture and it is not affirmed by the NT. Luke says nothing in the genealogy either about fasting or about Adam being the first parent of humanity, nor does Paul say anything about Adam being the first parent of humanity in Romans.

According to Paul:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).
​

Paul says repeatedly that sin was the result of one sin/trespass and Paul identifies that man as Adam.

What has this got to do with you claim “Paul always speaks of Adam as the first parent of humanity”?

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (II Peter 3:15.16)
​

The Scriptures are crystal clear, in Adam all sinned and there is no orthodox Christian doctrine to the contrary. Don't you get tired of being wrong about everything you preach on these boards, distorting the Scriptures to fit your naturalistic assumptions.

Wow you quote 2Peter 3 again about ignorant and unstable people distorting what Paul says, and again you distort scripture. Where does the bible say in Adam all sinned?

Paul always speaks of Adam as the first parent of humanity… as do all New Testament writers.

I'm not the one distorting and twisting the Scriptures here, you have never made a single point stick and you have been refuted countless times. You can't make the most basic exposition of the requisite text without conflating an historical narrative with a metaphor in an unrelated text. You are begging the question of proof on your hands and knees and want to make a scathing indictment based on that.

It's sad really but all too common.

So where do all the New Testament writers say Adam was the first parent of humanity? Instead of saying “no you are” why not back up your claim and show you aren’t distorting scripture, why not show us where all the NT writers say this, why not show us even one of the NT writers saying Adam was the first parent of humanity? (St Basil doesn’t really count as a NT writer.)

You try to argue that Paul is speaking of Adam figuratively Paul makes this statement regarding Adam. Because the King James Bible translates tupos (G5179 τύπο&#962 as 'figure' you pretend it means that Adam is a figure of speech.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)
​

This is not how that word is used in the original. The word actually means:

From G5180; a die (as struck), that is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler (“type&#8221, that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)
​

This is how the word is used in other passages:

tupoi

1 Cor 10:6, here it means literal idolaters are examples of what not to do.
1 Cor 10:11, here it means literal people who murmured, same meaning.
1 Pe 5:3, here it means literal leaders of the church are examples not Lords.
​

tupon

John 20:25, Here it means the literal print of the nail in Jesus hand.
John 20:25, Here it means the same thing.
Acts 7:44, Here it means a literal pattern.
Acts 23:25, Here it means the manner in which a letter is literally written.
Rom 6:17, Here it means a literal doctrine.
Php 3:17, Here it means a literal Paul and his companions.
2 Th 3:9, Same meaning here.
Titus 2:7, Here it means a literal pattern of good works.
Heb 8:5, Here is means literal Christians.
​

tupoV

Rom 5:14, Here it means a literal Adam
1 Ti 4:12 Here it means the literal Timothy be an example to others.
​

tupouV

Acts 7:43, here it means a literal idol, that represents a pagan god.
1 Th 1:7, here it means that literal believers are to be examples to other believers.
​

Paul also makes mention of Adam in his first letter to the Corinthians. There is no indication that Paul is speaking figuratively of Adam:

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)
​

Not once have you done a competent exposition of the requisite text and repeatedly shown that your false teaching regarding them is in error. Yet you still make these scathing indictments distorting the Scriptures to your own harm. I am not offended, I pity you Assyrian.

So let's review our history with this half baked bible study you keep posting.

The first time I challenged you, http://www.christianforums.com/t7519755-3/#post56447292 you gave a half hearted attempt at a defense and when I took that apart, http://www.christianforums.com/t7519755-4/#post56462122 you just gave up.
The second time I challenged on it, http://www.christianforums.com/t7532860-10/#post57030658 you never even replied.
The third time, I just referred back to the previous posts you could not answer. http://www.christianforums.com/t7524679-10/#post57370591
All you could say in defense was “I don't care about those links”.

There are no arguments just shallow rationalizations.

Or at least no arguments you can address. That’s fine Mark, don’t worry about it..

So because Paul used the common biblical metaphor of God as a potter...

No he did not and you know it.

What are you trying to claim Mark? That the imagery of God as a potter is not a metaphor? Some are similes but I don’t really think that helps you wriggle out of this common biblical imagery. That it is not common? I quoted a whole series of passages that use this imagery, which you edited out in your reply. That Paul wasn’t referring back to the potter imagery from the OT? In just the previous verse, Rom 9:20, Paul quotes Isaiah 29:16 and the imagery of the clay talking back to the potter.

The Bible does not speak to astronomy, it does speak to human ancestry and it begins with Adam. Why don't you just abandon these fallacious arguments and try something substantive? Could it be that you don't have anything?

The bible talks about the movement of the sun and moon, and the earth being fixed and immovable which everyone interpreted literally as the sun going round a stationary earth before Copernicus. The bible also talks of God making people from clay, and one of these passages people have taken literally too. Why was the church right to revise its geocentric interpretations but wrong to revise its interpretation of Adam being made from clay? You can’t just say it doesn’t speak of astronomy but it does speak of human ancestry. All that tells us is which interpretation you believe in. It doesn’t tell us which interpretations the church should give up when faced with scientific developments and which interpretation it should hold onto, or how to tell them apart.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

The word evolution is used too loosely. What we observe in organisms is completely different then what we expect with common descent. Is common descent supposed to be evolution, yes. But common descent is due to a completely different mechanism that we have not only not observed, but are lost to how it could actually even happen.
Therefore, evolution as we observe it is theory, and perhaps fact, but the 'overwhelming evidence' of common descent is only subject to a hypothesis, not actual theory and definitely not a confirmed fact.

Let's not forget that science itself is not central to atheistic ideas, but rather people place such on it. The word science means knowledge, and therefore does not even indicate a certain brand of thinking itself. Science does not have a mind of it's own, it's simply a word we use to describe discovery and sense. In fact, real science is based on such a way, and that is why even what is called truth remains theory, because you cannot actually know anything until you know everything.
Newton had a lot to say on these things as far as all this, and even laid out principles and rules on the matter. And I think that some people go against their own fundamentals, as as far as TE's go, kind of mix up both science and the Bible. If there is something extremely important that TE's need to do, it's to get out of that trench and find higher reasoning.

 

[theFijian]

And I think that some people go against their own fundamentals, as as far as TE's go, kind of mix up both science and the Bible. If there is something extremely important that TE's need to do, it's to get out of that trench and find higher reasoning.

The devil's irony is that you recognise the logical issues with Creationism, yet for some reason you ascribe these logical issues to theistic Evolution. Theistic evolutionists realise that the Bible is not a science textbook and is not trying to make the kind of claims that we today would recognise as being scientific claims. This is not a 'kind of mix up of both science and the Bible', this is recognising that God has revealed himself in two ways; through divine scripture and through his Creation. Creationism on the other hand requires that science and the bible are inextricably linked; the claim being that the Bible must be scientifically true for it to be true in any sense. The mistake being creatiomism holds science up in a way it does not claim for itself. Something extremely important which Creationists need to do; get off their high horse of charity and find logical thinking (anolagy intended)

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Creationism on the other hand requires that science and the bible are inextricably linked;

No it doesn't, at least not in the sense of what TE's claim science to be.

Science is knowledge, and knowledge begins with God.

TE's science does not begin with God, it begins with a naturalistic approach.

Therefore, TE's use a science that is doomed to it's own subjective conclusions.

 

[theFijian]

No it doesn't, at least not in the sense of what TE's claim science to be.

You have continuously demonstrated that you do not understand the TE position

Science is knowledge, and knowledge begins with God.

But you fail to understand that Science is not the only kind of knowledge, nor is it the highest kind of knowledge; which is where your idea that science and the Bible must mix comes from.

TE's science does not begin with God, it begins with a naturalistic approach.

Yes it does. It acknowledges that he created everything

Therefore, TE's use a science that is doomed to it's own subjective conclusions.

Demonstrating your false idea that you think science and the Bible must be inextricably linked; demonstrating your propensity for self contradiction in the space of just one post.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

You have continuously demonstrated that you do not understand the TE position

Every single TEist I have ever spoken to in my life have demonstrated that that it does not stand up to the Bible in any way.

It's abundantly clear that if one takes Genesis as a historical document, there is no way of including common descent. It's just that simple. It should be like explaining to Lebron James to shoot a basketball: not even worth mentioning.
But that does not stop TE's from throwing up something they know is not true anyways.

I have fully shown errors to you with TE, and you deny them, make up little lies about it and spam threads with nonsense because it makes you mad.

But you fail to understand that Science is not the only kind of knowledge, nor is it the highest kind of knowledge; which is where your idea that science and the Bible must mix comes from.

Your science is built on naturalism, not God. You think because people have gone on, arrogantly assumed the initial condition of everything, and built conclusions from them, God must be a deceiver if those conclusions are not true.
It's extremely foolish, and laughable if one steps back and just takes a good look at it.

It's a very basic concept. It's all about where the starting point is. That is something TE's stay conveniently oblivious of. When I first heard of theistic evolution, I thought there was more to it. Perhaps maybe even something biblical.
When I saw that it was based on pretty much nothing except assumption of the natural universe, I dropped it.
Because it is meaningless. All one has to do is marinate on it., and it's realized. TE's are just committed to ToE, that's all it is.

 

[theFijian]

Every single TEist I have ever spoken to in my life have demonstrated that that it does not stand up to the Bible in any way.

Please don't blame others for yur lack of comprehension.

It's abundantly clear that if one takes Genesis as a historical document, there is no way of including common descent.

Of course it's a historical document. It's just not always a literal historical document

It's just that simple. It should be like explaining to Lebron James to shoot a basketball: not even worth mentioning.
But that does not stop TE's from throwing up something they know is not true anyways.

Quelle suprise, more handwaving and falsehoods.

I have fully shown errors to you with TE, and you deny them, make up little lies about it and spam threads with nonsense because it makes you mad.

Of course lies and untruths make me mad, I suppose you like lies and untruths. Oh wait...that actually explains a few things....

Your science is built on naturalism, not God.

The Bible tells us that God is knowable through nature; nature speaks to us of God; yet God is not part of nature. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

You think because people have gone on, arrogantly assumed the initial condition of everything, and built conclusions from them, God must be a deceiver if those conclusions are not true.

No I simply assume that God's revelations do not conflict, that is all. Please don't make any more false accusations.

It's extremely foolish, and laughable if one steps back and just takes a good look at it.

Another good description of your arguments and Creationism in general.

It's a very basic concept. It's all about where the starting point is.

My starting point is God. Why, where is yours?

That is something TE's stay conveniently oblivious of. When I first heard of theistic evolution, I thought there was more to it. Perhaps maybe even something biblical.

Are you going to continue ignoring this verse? Colossians 1:16 & 17 - For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. [sup]17[/sup] And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

When I saw that it was based on pretty much nothing except assumption of the natural universe, I dropped it.
Because it is meaningless. All one has to do is marinate on it., and it's realized.

Lol! 'Marinate'! Is english your first language?

TE's are just committed to ToE, that's all it is.

More lies. We are committed to God's revelation. You have singluarly failed to deal with it. Not our problem obviously since you are the one who prefers falsehoods to truth.

 

[lucaspa]

Is it really "human" interpretation? I always thought one is supposed to be taught by the Holy-Spirit about things relating to God (i.e creation) and not to rely on the knowledge of men, no?

Creationists don't look on it that way. They divorce knowledge gained from Creation from the Holy Spirit.

You appear to do so, also. Tell me: Who created? So why is what we learn about Creation solely "human wisdom"?

Take your signature for example, "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Automatically, you assume that science is inerrant and if any bible interpretation contradicts science (human wisdom), then that interpretation is wrong.

1. Those are not "assumptions". They are conclusions.
2. Those quotes are not me.
3. Nothing here says science is "inerrant". Christians in 1832 qualified their statements by "sound science". Now, they considered what geology had found on the age of the earth and a world-wide flood to be "sound science". Every Christian considers what has been found about the shape of the earth or the organization of the solar system to be "sound science". That science has been used, by creationists, to tell them that the interpretation of some Biblical verses was in error. Mark Kennedy is bringing out Church Fathers to show their support for a literal Adam. However, what he is ignoring is that those same Church Fathers also thought the earth was flat and that the earth is the center of the solar system. Since then we have all (even Mark Kennedy) used sound science to tell us that a literal interpretation of those verses is wrong.

However, what science fails to mention is that the so-called theories they believe in (big-bang, evolution etc) are loaded with assumptions and no concrete evidence.

That simply isn't true. That's what professional creationists tell people, but it is not true. Both evolution and Big Bang have massive amounts of concrete evidence.

Now, I notice you said "so-called theories" but didn't limit which theories fit as "so-called". So, do you think science never has "concrete evidence" in support of theories? Do you think science does not have concrete evidence for Round Earth Theory? How about Heliocentric Theory? Or how about "DNA is the hereditary material" Theory?

You are also ignoring the massive number of theories in science that have been falsified. Science discards theories when the evidence is against them. For instance, "science" no longer "believes" in flat earth, does it? Why do you think this is so? Science no longer "believes" in phlogiston, either. Why do you think this is so?

Is this not putting your own knowledge above God's? To claim to know how the earth and human beings were created when the bible clearly says otherwise?

And here it is again: it's all about the Bible. It's not about God, but about the Bible. Why do you think "God's knowledge" is found only in the Bible? Why do you think your human interpretation is "God's knowledge"? Above you talked about "assumptions". Aren't you now making 2 assumptions?
1. The Bible is the only source of knowledge from God.
2. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is the correct interpretation.

Now Genesis is being read as allegorical instead of being literal by some, when clearly Jesus and Paul believed in a literal Adam and Eve.

Jesus never used Adam and Eve as literal. He used them as theological. Paul is contradictory. He uses a "literal" Adam in one case to explain why we need Jesus as Savior. (In that chapter, he gets the rest of scripture of Genesis 3 wrong, so I am not inclined to accept his "literal" Adam.) In other epistles Paul leaves all that out and simply says Jesus died for our sins.

Paul never made a consistent theology. He was trying to convert as many Gentiles as possible as quickly as possible because Paul thought his was the last generation. So he tried lots of different appeals to the different churches, tailoring his appeals to that particular church.

I guess at the end of the day, it always comes down to where your faith rests, and I put my faith in the LORD.

You put your faith in your literal interpretation of the Bible. If you put your faith in the Lord, you would not ignore the Lord when He speaks to you.

 

[lucaspa]

Every single TEist I have ever spoken to in my life have demonstrated that that it does not stand up to the Bible in any way.

And why do you confine yourself to the Bible when you are talking about God? Is the Bible God? However, as theFijian noted, are you familiar with Colossians 1:16 & 17?

It's abundantly clear that if one takes Genesis as a historical document, there is no way of including common descent.

The problem is that "if". Now we are talking about assumptions. Is the assumption that Genesis 1-3 history a valid assumption? God tells you "No!" in both Genesis 1-3 and in His Creation. Why do you stick with something God tells you is not true?

Your science is built on naturalism, not God. You think because people have gone on, arrogantly assumed the initial condition of everything, and built conclusions from them, God must be a deceiver if those conclusions are not true.

No one "assumes" initial conditions. Those were initially hypotheses to be tested. The testing has supported the hypothesis. Sum1sgruj, have you ever done a scientific experiment? Even in high school? Did you build that experiment on God? If so, how?

It's a very basic concept. It's all about where the starting point is. That is something TE's stay conveniently oblivious of. When I first heard of theistic evolution, I thought there was more to it. Perhaps maybe even something biblical.
When I saw that it was based on pretty much nothing except assumption of the natural universe, I dropped it.

Since when is the natural universe an assumption? I thought the natural universe was something created by God. Are you saying it's not?

But I agree, the disagreement about creationism and TE is about "where the starting point is". For TE, the starting point is God. For creationism, it's their interpretation of the Bible. That interpretation, for creationism, is god.








[/quote]

 

[lucaspa]

So are we talking about genuine (natural) design or just the appearance of design?

When we say "design", there is usually a hidden prepositional phrase: "by an intelligent entity".

What Darwin did was find an unintelligent entity that makes designs: Darwinian selection (when it happens in nature is it "natural selection"). This meant that the hidden prepositional phrase was no longer valid. Now when we said "design" we needed to specify whether we meant "by an intelligent entity" or "by Darwinian selection".

However, many people incorporated that hidden prepositional phrase as part of their definition of "design". Richard Dawkins is one of those. So, for Dawkins, "design" always meant "by an intelligent entity". But Dawkins knows that the designs in organisms comes from natural selection. So Dawkins tried to use the phrase "appearance of design" and "designoid" to designate designs by Darwinian selection.

That, as you have noted, gets confusing very quickly. The tiger's stripes would have to be "the appearance of design". But the only reason that is so is because those stripes are the result of natural selection (what you mistakenly call "completely blind trial and error"). It's much clearer if you just say "the tiger's stripes were designed by natural selection".

Genetics is a completely different case. From what little I know, genes do actually organise themselves almost like a language, even with their own 'grammar'. This seems as close to intentional design as nature is capable of.

I'm going to need you to give us more details. I've never seen it said that genes organise themselves like a language. Instead, what I has a biochemists have always heard is that the coding of bases in DNA for the amino acids is like a language. Very different things. And no, it's not "intentional design", but the genetic code is also the result of natural selection.

 

[lucaspa]

That's because it's an a priori assumption, it comes before evidence, it applies to all life whether it has been discovered or not.

Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. (Prof. Robert Weinberg, MIT)
​

That's not science, it's supposition.

Evolution of life on earth is not a a priori assumption. It is a well tested and strongly supported theory. Dr. Weinberg says as much in the lecture -- but not the part you quoted.

Dr. Weinburg is not making an a priori assumption. Rather, he is extrapolating from what we know on Earth and what we know about Darwinian evolution (particularly natural selection). As Douglas Futuyma points out, many systems, not just life on earth, are "evolutionary": "In all such systems there are populations, or groups, of entities; there is variation in one or more characteristics among the members of the population; there is HEREDITARY SIMILARITY between parent and offspring entities; and over the course of generations there may be changes in the proportions of individuals with different characteristics within populations." Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, (1999) pg 4.

Wherever and whenever you find a system with these properties, you will find a system of Darwinian Evolution. Life, on its most basic principles, is going to meet the requirements. Because perfect replication can never be achieved (thanks to the 2nd Law of Thermodyamics), there is always going to be variation. Since life involves reproduction, there is going to be heredity, and there are going to be populations of organisms, not a single one. After all, even if you start out with one, as soon as it reproduces, you have a population.

So, as far as Weinberg can see, Darwinian Evolution is going to apply to all life anywhere. What you can do is consider this a new hypothesis. It's obvious that the hypothesis is not evolution on earth, but a hypothesis that all life anywhere is going to involved Darwinian evolution. As I said, the hypothesis is logical. That hypothesis is now available for testing.

 

[lucaspa]

The word evolution is used too loosely. What we observe in organisms is completely different then what we expect with common descent.

What we call "evolution" as proposed by Darwin is 5 theories:
"1. The nonconstancy of species (the basic theory of evolution)
2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors (branching evolution).
3.The gradualness of evolution (no saltations, no discontinuities)
4.The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity)
5. Natural selection." Ernst Mayr, What Evolution IS. pg 86

What we see in organisms is exactly what we would expect with common descent (#2 above), from gross morphology to physiology to amino acid sequences in proteins to base sequences in DNA. I am quite happy to walk you thru some of that data if you want.

But common descent is due to a completely different mechanism that we have not only not observed, but are lost to how it could actually even happen.

You may be lost, but that is your Argument from Ignorance. Evolution has mechanisms for descent with modification giving rise to diversity. Mechanisms that have been repeatedly tested and observed. Have you ever heard about allopatric speciation, sympatric speciation, and genetic drift?

In fact, real science is based on such a way, and that is why even what is called truth remains theory, because you cannot actually know anything until you know everything.

That is not true at all. Deductive logic allows you to know many things without knowing everything. For instance, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt:
1. The earth is not flat.
2. The earth is not the center of the solar system.
3. Phlogiston is not involved in combustion.
4. Proteins are not the hereditary material.
5. The chemical composition of the mineral in bone is not Ca9(OH)18.

Do you doubt any of those?

Newton had a lot to say on these things as far as all this, and even laid out principles and rules on the matter.

And what do you think Newton said? Please provide sources.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

And why do you confine yourself to the Bible when you are talking about God? Is the Bible God? However, as theFijian noted, are you familiar with Colossians 1:16 & 17?

Colossians 1:16-17 does not omit Genesis. It's not even relevant. It's a biblical one-liner that TE's stick to that is somehow supposed merit all of their conclusions. The fact of the matter is that the Bible is completely sterile of theistic evolution, and yet has plenty to say on the contrary.

And I am not speaking on theFijian because he likes to go around the threads and lie about statements I've made and spread garbage about me.
He's also extremely rude and antagonistic. But as long as he's defending your ideas, who cares right?
So if his statements go completely ignored by me, you will know why.

The problem is that "if". Now we are talking about assumptions. Is the assumption that Genesis 1-3 history a valid assumption? God tells you "No!" in both Genesis 1-3 and in His Creation. Why do you stick with something God tells you is not true?

So Genesis is a fable. If the Bible actually speaks to you in a way where God outright denies His own words after speaking them, cool.
Common descent is a fable, but that doesn't stop people such as you, for example, from defending the contrary as much as possible. You are basing common descent with evolution we observe, and that is a falsity.
See, it's things like that which I base my conclusion that TE's are merely just committed to such things. The Bible comes second.

No one "assumes" initial conditions. Those were initially hypotheses to be tested. The testing has supported the hypothesis. Sum1sgruj, have you ever done a scientific experiment? Even in high school? Did you build that experiment on God? If so, how?

Yes, assuming the initial conditions. Because of this naturalistic universe, which your science is based on, the world is billions of years old. Therefore, floods and gardens? No way. It just has to be your way or else God is a deceiver.
It's the most foolish statement I've ever heard.

But I agree, the disagreement about creationism and TE is about "where the starting point is". For TE, the starting point is God. For creationism, it's their interpretation of the Bible. That interpretation, for creationism, is god.

TE's interpretation for God is not in the Bible. In fact, a TE's Bible may as well just be a biology textbook with a couple crosses in it.

You all just place God somewhere in your scientific intrigues, which makes no sense. The universe has to evolve, because your interpretation outdoes God's paintbrush?
It's ludicrous.

The Christian faith does not require the acceptance of man's theoretical ideas.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I'm going to need you to give us more details. I've never seen it said that genes organise themselves like a language. Instead, what I has a biochemists have always heard is that the coding of bases in DNA for the amino acids is like a language. Very different things. And no, it's not "intentional design", but the genetic code is also the result of natural selection.

I should have said DNA organises itself like a language, not genes. Sorry, that was a mistake.

Admittedly I don't really know very much about how DNA organises itself. From the little I do know though is that the way it puts itself together works in a systematic matter - almost a 'deliberate' manner - in a way that suggests it's following a pattern or set of instructions. I'm not how this happens because DNA itself basically a set of instructions. What instructions are they following?

But again, I don't really know so I could be wrong.

 

[tyronem]

It's good to see someone point out that going back through the founder of the evangelical movement, back to Augustine, shows that recognizing that the evidence from the world is divine revelation is part of being Christian.

Jonathan Dudley: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution

Why do you think some people today have lost sight of this ancient truth?

Papias

lol, what's funny is that evolutionists use Augustine as backup and Augustine was a creationist !!!!!!!

Aside from the fact that evolutionary origins is not science it is not science it is philosophy

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

lol, what's funny is that evolutionists use Augustine as backup and Augustine was a creationist !!!!!!!

An accurate theory of evolution didn't exist when Augustine was alive, so naturally he couldn't have been an evolutionist.

However he rejected a literal interpretation of Genesis so we cannot call him a creationist either.

 

[tyronem]

An accurate theory of evolution didn't exist when Augustine was alive, so naturally he couldn't have been an evolutionist.

However he rejected a literal interpretation of Genesis so we cannot call him a creationist either.

But it is a fallacy to assume he would adopt evolution in favor of creation.

He was a creationist, he just thought that God did it all at once in an instant rather than over 6 days. His viewpoint on this has been soundly theologically refuted.

Not that it matters what one or one hundred or one million people think because that is the fallacy of appeal to authority / popularity depending on how you look at it.

Which by the way is exactly what the OP commits when giving this post is the appeal to authority fallacy. It is an invalid point and argument.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

But it is a fallacy to assume he would adopt evolution in favor of creation.

He was a creationist, he just thought that God did it all at once in an instant rather than over 6 days. His viewpoint on this has been soundly theologically refuted.

That still would not make him a creationist in the traditional sense, since he rejected a literal interpretation of Genesis. Obviously we'll never know what he would have thought of evolution.