How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?

[juvenissun]

Do you think that only homo sapiens are capable of having a relationship with God? That He'd be totally stymied if we became homo sapiens+?

Does your Gospel come with an expiration date? Mine doesn't.

So, was your gospel valid 10 million years ago? If not, why should it be valid 10 million years later?

 

[lawtonfogle]

So, was your gospel valid 10 million years ago? If not, why should it be valid 10 million years later?

It became valid once we were gifted a soul. It will remain so until that is taken away, if such a time ever comes.

 

[juvenissun]

It became valid once we were gifted a soul. It will remain so until that is taken away, if such a time ever comes.

You are just passing the problem to soul-giving. The problem is still there. Why wasn't the soul given 10 million years ago?

 

[lawtonfogle]

You are just passing the problem to soul-giving. The problem is still there. Why wasn't the soul given 10 million years ago?

Maybe it was. I make no claims on when it was, that is up for God to tell us.

 

[John 10:10]

Not all science can be tested in a laboratory, yet you don't object to most of it.

Very true, but it's the science that can be tested and verified to a high degree of accuracy in a laboratory that produces the scientific facts that enables mankind to do all manner of creative endeavours,

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. (Eph 2:10)

Show us the creative endeavours that result from a ToE that CANNOT be tested in a laboratory?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Very true, but it's the science that can be tested and verified to a high degree of accuracy in a laboratory that produces the scientific facts that enables mankind to do all manner of creative endeavours,

Not always. Some experiments are too big for a laboratory (large scale physics), some need a more natural setting (some studies in psych), and some can be done anywhere (such as computational science).

Just because something is usually the case does not mean it is always the case or that it has to be the case.

Show us the creative endeavours that result from a ToE that CANNOT be tested in a laboratory?

Rephrase that one please.

 

[Assyrian]

So, was your gospel valid 10 million years ago? If not, why should it be valid 10 million years later?

This has come up in the thread What was the Tree of Life too. You can find my reply here.

 

[The Lady Kate]

So, was your gospel valid 10 million years ago? If not, why should it be valid 10 million years later?

My gospel hadn't been written 10 million years ago... even if it had, whatever was roaming around at the time probably didn't have the cognition to form any kind of meaningful relationship with God. We do now.

Is that what you're afraid of, juviessun? in ten million years, we'll somehow be "too smart" for God?

 

[JusSumguy]

Is that what you're afraid of, juviessun? in ten million years, we'll somehow be "too smart" for God?

-

 

[LightSeaker]

So, was your gospel valid 10 million years ago? If not, why should it be valid 10 million years later?

If we are comparing gospels, the one I follow was valid 10 Billion years ago, it's just as equally valid today and it will be equally valid 10 billion years from now. That gospel can only be found with in life itself as Created and signed off by God's own signature.

.

 

[John 10:10]

Originally Posted by John 10:10

Very true, but it's the science that can be tested and verified to a high degree of accuracy in a laboratory that produces the scientific facts that enables mankind to do all manner of creative endeavours,
​

Not always. Some experiments are too big for a laboratory (large scale physics), some need a more natural setting (some studies in psych), and some can be done anywhere (such as computational science).

Just because something is usually the case does not mean it is always the case or that it has to be the case.

Show us the creative endeavours that result from a ToE that CANNOT be tested in a laboratory?
​

Rephrase that one please.

A laboratory can be big or small. But whether it's big or small, theories that become scientific facts are validated as being true to a high degree of accuracy. The ToE can never be validated as being true to a high degree of accuracy because of the billions of years time factor needed to validate this theory. For this reason, true scientific studies and their validation facts are primarily limited to time factors that can be measured in a laboratory, or within man's normal life span.

I believe in the energy sciences and all other sciences that have been validated to a high degree of accuracy in a laboratory from start to finish. I have worked in the energy business for 45 years, both fossil and nuclear, taking the scientific facts of how the energy of atoms can be harnessed, engineering these scientific facts into electric energy for the good of mankind, and even into nuclear weapons that can be used for the destruction of mankind.

Man, whom God created in His image, was given the ability to be creative. Man has been delving into the wonders of God’s creation and the life He created ever since God created man telling man to be “fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule” (Gen 1:28a). Man has done a pretty good job learning the scientific facts that have allowed man to subdue the earth. Many honor God for allowing them to discover and use the scientific facts of His creation, and many do not. But because of man’s sin/self-centered nature, many of those who do not honor God as Creator have done a lousy job ruling “over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen 1:28b).

I do not believe in a so-called science that tells man he evolved from lower life animals that started billions of years ago from a single cell creature, even if some want to attribute and call this process “theistic evolution.” God has revealed in His Word that all plants and animals were created “after their own kind” (Gen 1), which means they did not evolve from one species to another to another. Depending on the environmental conditions that have existed on the earth since God created the earth some 4.5 billion years ago, the earth was not ready for God to create fully formed creatures until the Cambrian period some 500+ million years ago. After each major extinction period, God continued to create various pants and animals suitable for life on earth. Science tells us that the last extinction period occurred some 75,000 years ago. Science now tells us that the DNA structure of present day man can be traced back to a beginning which occurred less than 75,000 years ago.

This is the science that I know, believe in, and have used all of my life. This is the true science that those who know their God have participated in since God created present day man less that 75,000 years ago. Those who want to believe in a unproven pseudo-science that says man has evolved over billions/millions of years may do so, but you so to your detriment, even if you want to attribute some of this to theistic evolution. If some Christians want to believe in God’s creation that began just a few thousand years ago, at least they attribute everything to God’s creative power. But if theistic evolution is true, it must line up with God’s Word, and it DOES NOT. When man compromises God’s Word, man not only compromises his ability to have a right relationship with God, man usually rejects God’s means to God’s redemption in the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s as simple and as difficult as that.

Blessings

 

[The Lady Kate]

A laboratory can be big or small. But whether it's big or small, theories that become scientific facts are validated as being true to a high degree of accuracy. The ToE can never be validated as being true to a high degree of accuracy because of the billions of years time factor needed to validate this theory.

Just fyi... scientific theories never graduate into "scientific facts."

 

[John 10:10]

Just fyi... scientific theories never graduate into "scientific facts."

I disagree. Scientific theories can and do become "scientific facts" or "scientific laws" when they are validated to be true to a high degree of accuracy. Theories that can't be validated to be true to a high degree of accuracy remain just that - theories. Some of them, such as the ToE, have very bad consequences, both for time and for eternity.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I disagree. Scientific theories can and do become "scientific facts" or "scientific laws" when they are validated to be true to a high degree of accuracy. Theories that can't be validated to be true to a high degree of accuracy remain just that - theories. Some of them, such as the ToE, have very bad consequences, both for time and for eternity.

Kindly give a single example of a scientific theory which became a "scientific law."

 

[metherion]

I disagree. Scientific theories can and do become "scientific facts" or "scientific laws" when they are validated to be true to a high degree of accuracy. Theories that can't be validated to be true to a high degree of accuracy remain just that - theories. Some of them, such as the ToE, have very bad consequences, both for time and for eternity.

Then you don't know about scientific terminology.

A fact is an empirically observable and verifiable piece of data, such as 'things fall at 9.8m/(s^2)', the electric resistance of this wire at this temperature is X', and so on.
A Law is USUALLY an EQUATION, such as e=mc^2, or G*m1*m2/(r^2).

A Theory is an explanation that ties together facts and explains any applicable laws.

Metherion

 

[sfs]

A fact is an empirically observable and verifiable piece of data, such as 'things fall down'.
A Law is USUALLY an EQUATION, such as e=mc^2, or G*m1*m2/(r^2).

An interesting thing about scientific laws is that most of them are known to be wrong.

 

[metherion]

I know they all aren't universally applicable, but I never got into the 'most' part.

Perhaps you could provide some examples to show the point? You can likely do so better than I.

Metherion

 

[Assyrian]

A laboratory can be big or small. But whether it's big or small, theories that become scientific facts are validated as being true to a high degree of accuracy. The ToE can never be validated as being true to a high degree of accuracy because of the billions of years time factor needed to validate this theory. For this reason, true scientific studies and their validation facts are primarily limited to time factors that can be measured in a laboratory, or within man's normal life span.

Was Copernican astronomy a true scientific study when it showed the earth orbited the sun? That is pretty hard to fit in a laboratory. It was centuries later before mankind even ventured into space to see for themselves that the laws of physics operated in space the scientists had work out that they would. That science overturned a millennium and a half of of literal interpretation of the geocentric passages in the bible.

I do not believe in a so-called science that tells man he evolved from lower life animals that started billions of years ago from a single cell creature, even if some want to attribute and call this process “theistic evolution.” God has revealed in His Word that all plants and animals were created “after their own kind” (Gen 1), which means they did not evolve from one species to another to another.

What I don't get is how you jump from being created 'after their kinds' to saying it can't have involved evolution. Creating all the creatures after their kind means creating the different sorts of animal there are. It does not matter how the species and genera were formed, Genesis just says that they were. In fact Genesis says that God commanded the earth to produce all the different kinds. Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds. Do new kinds continue to evolve? That just means the earth is continuing to obey God's command to bring forth living creatures according to their kinds.

 

[sfs]

I know they all aren't universally applicable, but I never got into the 'most' part.

Perhaps you could provide some examples to show the point? You can likely do so better than I.

I've never actually tried to count, so "most" may or may not be right. But some that are wrong (by which I mean they are not exactly right -- they're still good approximations for many domains):

Ohm's Law
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
Newton's laws of motion
Boyle's Law
The Law of Biot and Savart
Fourier's Law
Charles's Law
Kepler's three laws
Ideal Gas Law
The Law of Definite Proportions

The conservation laws -- energy (but not mass), momentum, angular momentum, charge -- continue to hold, as far as I know.

 

[gluadys]

A laboratory can be big or small. But whether it's big or small, theories that become scientific facts are validated as being true to a high degree of accuracy.

You are using an outmoded understanding of science. Theories do not become facts. Nor do laws. We have a fact of gravity. We have a law of gravity. And we have a theory of gravity (relativity). They are not the same thing. The theory encompasses and explains the facts and the law.

The ToE can never be validated as being true to a high degree of accuracy because of the billions of years time factor needed to validate this theory.

It depends on what needs to be validated. Do species change over time? We can and do test that in laboratories all the time. They do. Do certain factors such as natural selection explain how species change? That has also been tested in laboratories and in the field with positive results.

Now that leaves only one element that cannot be studied completely in real time: the actual history of evolutionary change since the first living cells appeared on earth. But that doesn't mean it can't be studied at all. We can use the theory to suggest what sort of evidence that history would leave. And then we can look to see if that sort of evidence shows up in our data. We can also consider what kind of evidence would not show up, if the theory is correct and see if that evidence appears in our data. If it does, it shows that the theory is incorrect.

I do not believe in a so-called science that tells man he evolved from lower life animals that started billions of years ago from a single cell creature, even if some want to attribute and call this process “theistic evolution.”

Just because you don't agree with science is no reason to refer to it as "so-called" science. What is wrong with simply disagreeing with science?

God has revealed in His Word that all plants and animals were created “after their own kind” (Gen 1), which means they did not evolve from one species to another to another.

We have nothing in the biblical text that tells us the second part of this statement is properly based on the first part of the statement.

Depending on the environmental conditions that have existed on the earth since God created the earth some 4.5 billion years ago, the earth was not ready for God to create fully formed creatures until the Cambrian period some 500+ million years ago.

Again, "fully-formed" seems to mean simply "multicellular life". It is a strange way to distinguish multicellular life from unicellular life. It makes it sound as if unicellular species are somehow incomplete, which is far from being the case. OTOH, we also now know that multicellular life existed well before the Cambrian.

Science tells us that the last extinction period occurred some 75,000 years ago.

Does it? Where can I learn more about this extinction period?

I take it you do not agree with the interpretation of scripture that makes Noah's flood the last major extinction event and dates it to around 2300 BCE.

Science now tells us that the DNA structure of present day man can be traced back to a beginning which occurred less than 75,000 years ago.

I think you are confusing the idea of the first humans with the concept of the last common ancestor of the current living population. There is no reason I know of to think that the LCA of modern humans had a DNA structure any different from that of her contemporaries and ancestors. The oldest H.sapiens fossil is nearly 200,000 years old and if current human DNA structure only appears 75,000 years ago, what DNA structure did those fossils have when alive?

This is the science that I know, believe in, and have used all of my life.

That may be, but it is not the science scientists use.

And it is interesting to see the way this conversation has veered away from the topic of evolution and theistic evolution.

You began by saying:

I have no problem with Christians "learning about evolution." What I have a problem with is calling it science.


and

But science cannot show how life evolved from inanimate matter, and then somehow evolved into all manner of living things.



So your basic objection to evolution wasn't really to evolution, but to something the theory of evolution does not cover: the origin of life.


Now you shift away even from that topic to a discussion of what is and is not "true science".

The subject of evolution has got lost in the shuffle.

This is the true science that those who know their God have participated in since God created present day man less that 75,000 years ago. Those who want to believe in a unproven pseudo-science that says man has evolved over billions/millions of years may do so, but you so to your detriment, even if you want to attribute some of this to theistic evolution.

But it is just as unproven that God created present day humanity less than 75,000 years ago. So why is that not also "unproven pseudo-science"?

If some Christians want to believe in God’s creation that began just a few thousand years ago, at least they attribute everything to God’s creative power.

So do those who hold that God created life to evolve.

But if theistic evolution is true, it must line up with God’s Word, and it DOES NOT. When man compromises God’s Word, man not only compromises his ability to have a right relationship with God, man usually rejects God’s means to God’s redemption in the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s as simple and as difficult as that.

And here we get to the usual conclusion of such discussions. One begins by asserting that evolution is not really science--usually for a spurious reason such as that it cannot explain something that it doesn't claim to be able to explain--like the origin of life.

Then, as noted, when this error is pointed out, we get the discussion on what is and is not "true science" trying to define science in a way to exclude evolution.

And when that fails, take the theological tack of defining evolutionary creationists out of the Body of Christ because they do not consider you an infallible interpreter of scripture.

None of this deals with the real question: does evolution really describe a phenomenon of nature? Because if evolution really is a fact of nature, your rhetoric means nothing--you are just wrong about evolution.