Discussion on the topic of evolution - Who believes what?

[pitabread]

It's pointless to compare a theory of origins, which is what Darwinism and Creationism actually is, with a scientific theory because the subject of origins is metaphysics.

And once again mark is using his private definition of "Darwinism" by which he actually means metaphysical naturalism and/or metaphysical atheism which has absolutely to do with whether or not the Theory of Evolution is a valid scientific theory.

 

[Tutorman]

Very well meaning Christians have given into to Satan and accepted his lie of evolution, they perish for lack of knowledge. Of course an agnostic or an atheist would never understand, being lost already they love the world and hate God. Why would they not say evolution is correct, since they hearken to the father of lies.

 

[pitabread]

Very well meaning Christians have given into to Satan and accepted his lie of evolution, they perish for lack of knowledge. Of course an agnostic or an atheist would never understand, being lost already they love the world and hate God. Why would they not say evolution is correct, since they hearken to the father of lies.

It appears you speak neither for Christians, agnostics or atheists with respect to what they think or believe.

 

[Tutorman]

It appears you speak neither for Christians, agnostics or atheists with respect to what they think or believe.

What else could one who hates God and the truth say but what you have said

 

[pitabread]

What else could one who hates God and the truth say but what you have said

For the record, I don't "hate" God. I simply believe that if there were a supernatural being or beings responsible for the existence of the universe, they are not likely to be represented by any human religious beliefs.

IOW, it's specific views on theism I disagree with, not necessarily the existence of God.

But I imagine as someone who appears to have already decided on what others believe, this will be difficult for you to accept.

 

[Tutorman]

For the record, I don't "hate" God. I simply believe that if there were a supernatural being or beings responsible for the existence of the universe, they are not likely to be represented by any human religious beliefs.

IOW, it's specific views on theism I disagree with, not necessarily the existence of God.

But I imagine as someone who appears to have already decided on what others believe, this will be difficult for you to accept.

Spout off as you will, the truth you hide from

 

[mark kennedy]

And once again mark is using his private definition of "Darwinism" by which he actually means metaphysical naturalism and/or metaphysical atheism which has absolutely to do with whether or not the Theory of Evolution is a valid scientific theory.

First of all evolution isn't a theory, it's a natural phenomenon and I'm not using my definition of Darwinism, I'm using the one Charles Darwin used:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions. With respect to the means of modification, he attributed something to the direct action of the physical conditions of life, something to the crossing of already existing forms, and much to use and disuse, that is, to the effects of habit. To this latter agency he seemed to attribute all the beautiful adaptations in nature; — such as the long neck of the giraffe for browsing on the branches of trees. But he likewise believed in a law of progressive development; and as all the forms of life thus tend to progress, in order to account for the existence at the present day of simple productions, he maintains that such forms are now spontaneously generated. (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species. Preface to the Sixth Edition)
​

Notice not the result of miraculous interposition but spontaneously generated. Darwin's theory is based on a clearly defined premise, summed up in a couple of previous books on zoology, predicated on naturalistic assumptions. Even Talk Origins agrees to this definition of what evolution actually is:

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. (Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. Talk Origins)
​

The most basic mistake the Darwinian makes with regards to evolution is that they insist that mutations are the driving force behind adaptive evolution:

The cellular machinery that copies DNA sometimes makes mistakes. These mistakes alter the sequence of a gene. This is called a mutation. (Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. Talk Origins)
​

We are talking about two things here that are being equivocated as if they were the same thing. Darwinism that is a fundamentally flawed theory of origins and evolution as a natural phenomenon. If you want to honestly admit that your working from naturalistic assumptions regarding origins I have no problem with you, just don't equivocate that with science and evolution because I know the difference, even if you don't.

Have a nice day
Mark

​

 

[mark kennedy]

For the record, I don't "hate" God. I simply believe that if there were a supernatural being or beings responsible for the existence of the universe, they are not likely to be represented by any human religious beliefs.

IOW, it's specific views on theism I disagree with, not necessarily the existence of God.

But I imagine as someone who appears to have already decided on what others believe, this will be difficult for you to accept.

It's not difficult to accept at all, I've always known that. Yes, it's a basic tenant of theism that God exists but it's also essential doctrine that God created life in Christian theism. While you might not accept that I would expect you should have a basic sensitivity to where the conviction comes from.

 

[pitabread]

First of all evolution isn't a theory, it's a natural phenomenon and I'm not using my definition of Darwinism, I'm using the one Charles Darwin used:

We've had this discussion before. I think your definition of "Darwinism" is inherently flawed and misleading, and you are deliberately muddying the discussion in the process.

But like I said, we've already talked about this.

 

[Speedwell]

It's not difficult to accept at all, I've always known that. Yes, it's a basic tenant of theism that God exists but it's also essential doctrine that God created life in Christian theism. While you might not accept that I would expect you should have a basic sensitivity to where the conviction comes from.

What is difficult to accept is your proposition that if God didn't create life exactly according to a literal reading of Genesis, He didn't create at all.

 

[mark kennedy]

We've had this discussion before. I think your definition of "Darwinism" is inherently flawed and misleading, and you are deliberately muddying the discussion in the process.

But like I said, we've already talked about this.

No it's not and yes we have talked about this. I'm not pulling this out of the air, it's based on the expressed views of Darwin in no uncertain terms, evident and obvious in your worldview. It's not enough to say you disagree, that's not an argument, it's a fallacy, an argument that never happened. That kind of circular argumentation doesn't impress me, I just identify it and move on.

 

[Speedwell]

all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.

​

It doesn't matter how many times you post that quote, it still is not the ringing declaration of metaphysical naturalism you pretend it to be.

 

[pitabread]

That kind of circular argumentation doesn't impress me, I just identify it and move on.

Then let us just say that we are equally unimpressed and leave it at that.

 

[mark kennedy]

Then let us just say that we are equally unimpressed and leave it at that.

Sure we can ignore the facts of history, philosophy and science. It's what Darwinians do best, thanks for the exchange.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[pitabread]

Sure we can ignore the facts of history, philosophy and science. It's what creationists do best, thanks for the exchange.

FIFY

 

[mark kennedy]

FIFY

Likewise I'm sure.

It's specific views on Darwinian naturalism I disagree with

 

[Motherofkittens]

Hello,

I'm not keen on arguing the case at all. I just hoped that folks here would be able to give me an answer on the below to perhaps ease the concern I'm feeling.

I'll say upright - I was baptised as a child, but I do not have any Christian beliefs. My mother is a very religious lady though, and it's because of her that I'm here.

I would like to know who here believes in evolution and who believes it is a work of fiction. My mother has recently told me that she doesn't believe in evolution - scientists invented it to disprove religion or God, or something of that nature. As she is growing older and she has always seemed otherwise quite rational, I just want to know - is this a common belief held by Christians? From my perspective, it worries me as I can't see how anyone could not believe in evolution (just as, I'm sure most people can't see how I could not believe in God and his great plans), and I feel as though maybe her mind is slipping. But if it is a common belief of Christians/religious people, then I can be reassured that it's just a difference between our beliefs and I needn't worry.

Please understand that I'm explaining from my own mindset and I don't want to come across as disbelieving or unpleasant on the topic - if I didn't explain that I don't believe in creation etc, then it wouldn't really make much sense to you why I was worried about my mother not believing in evolution.

I really hope I've explained this right and without offending anyone, and I look forward to your answers as to your beliefs and opinions on evolution.

Most Jewish and Christians from the beginning of their religions, to now, from around the world, think that genesis (as well as other parts) are allegory. A literal interpretation of the creation stories is a realtviety modern concept and it is mostly held by a small set of Americans. Although they are trying to spread it throughout the world. A big portion of Muslims that live in theocratic countries also believe in a literal genesis.

 

[mark kennedy]

Most Jewish and Christians from the beginning of their religions, to now, from around the world, think that genesis (as well as other parts) are allegory.

No they don't.

A literal interpretation of the creation stories is a realtviety modern concept and it is mostly held by a small set of Americans. Although they are trying to spread it throughout the world. A big portion of Muslims that live in theocratic countries also believe in a literal genesis.

Muslims don't believe in the Old Testament and the historic narratives of Genesis. They believe God created life but they don't make a big deal about it. With a few notable exceptions. It's rare but it does happen. Darwinism is an affront to God as first cause, that much is clear.

 

[pitabread]

It doesn't matter how many times you post that quote, it still is not the ringing declaration of metaphysical naturalism you pretend it to be.

Not only that, but even if Darwin were advocating a metaphysical naturalistic and/or atheistic view of the universe, it doesn't mean that any who accepts the modern Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the species on Earth need subscribe to the same underlying philosophy. There mere existence of theists of varying belief systems who also accept the ToE as valid science speaks to that.

This is why I've never fully understood why creationists continue to conflate the ToE and methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism and/or atheism. Is it really that difficult for creationists to grasp the difference in these concepts or is it a deliberate debate tactic?

 

[mark kennedy]

Not only that, but even if Darwin were advocating a metaphysical naturalistic and/or atheistic view of the universe, it doesn't mean that any who accepts the modern Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the species on Earth need subscribe to the same underlying philosophy. There mere existence of theists of varying belief systems who also accept the ToE as valid science speaks to that.

Again evolution isn't a theory it's a natural phenomenon. What your talking about is Darwinism and calling it ToE.

This is why I've never fully understood why creationists continue to conflate the ToE and methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism and/or atheism. Is it really that difficult for creationists to grasp the difference in these concepts or is it a deliberate debate tactic?

Darwinism is a philosophy of first causes, heck, it's a philosophy of all causes regarding life on this planet. It's called a naturalistic assumption:

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of existence, being and the world. Arguably, metaphysics is the foundation of philosophy: Aristotle calls it "first philosophy" (or sometimes just "wisdom"), and says it is the subject that deals with "first causes and the principles of things". (The Basics of Philosophy, Metaphysics)
​

Darwin made it clear:

All change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

It must be nice to have all the answers without doing any of the reading.