ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,466
- 26,895
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Originally Posted by Cuddles222Naturalistic Evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a Philosophy. The same with Creationism/ID. Both are still Philosophies.
I know what a scientific theory is, and Natural Evolution, so far, lacks evidence to confirm it as a scientific theory. It doesn't matter how many in the academic community claim differently. The truth is the truth. It remains a philosophy. I see Theistic Evolution more believable than Natural Evolution. Trillions upon trillions of years could be added to the Natural Evolutionary time-table and it still wouldn't be enough to fill in the thousands of gaps (steps) where only divine intervention could be concluded as having filled.
Scientifically, I'm not sure how "Natural" evolution differs from "Theistic" evolution. As a "Theistic Evolutionist" myself, I view evolution as a very natural and naturally explained phenomenon and set of mechanisms. I think pitting "natural" and "theistic" against each other in this sense doesn't serve much particular good.
A philosophical antithesis to Theistic evolution would be Atheistic evolution, as to the role or lack of role in the natural processes by the Divine is unrelated to any of the science involved and is entirely a matter of theological-philosophical leanings. By extension also to all other fields of scientific inquiry. E.g. Sexual reproduction is easily explained as being entirely natural process and mechanisms, though whether or not there is Divine activity present (e.g. the bequeathing of a human soul ) remains entirely in the realm of the theological-philosophical.
Not really trying to argue, just point out that the use of the word "natural" here probably isn't the most favorable of word choices.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0