lawtonfogle
My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
No duh. Anyone who believes that evolution can create universes (outside of works of fiction, of course) is wrong.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No duh. Anyone who believes that evolution can create universes (outside of works of fiction, of course) is wrong.I don't think you can actually become one. I think it just matters what you believe. If you believe that God created the universe using evolution then you sure are wrong but that would still make you a Theistic Evolutionist.
Digital philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe FACT is "we DO know how it happened" and so we are not appealing
to ignorance.
The FACT that information comes from an Intelligent Source is NOT an
appeal to ignorance. I would easily assert the Law of Information and
open it up for falsification.
If you can create complex information that is useful from random
processes, THEN you have falsified the Law of Information.
Just as Mike Behe has opened up Intelligent Design for falsification,
so also I would say that the Law of Information is falsifiable.
We DO know where DNA/RNA came from...and the only ignorance is
coming from those who deny theistic implication and "ignore" where
the evidence points to.... it is NOT an appeal to ignorance because
we are NOT claiming we don't know.
This is something that only those who have a false definition for
science have done.
If you can create complex information that is useful from random
processes, THEN you have falsified the Law of Information.
Theistic evolution doesn't belong in textbooks because the theistic part is not scientific.
Because it is based on how we each define rejecting and ignoring. I use the words a bit more fluidly than you do, thus semantics.
I think what many of us are suggesting is that you exercise more discipline in your use of these terms.
When did I ever mention X being evidence for something? Maybe I mistyped something somewhere.
I start off by saying either A (using different variables here to reduce possible confusion) does or does not exist. Now, I can take the active stance A does 'not exist', or I can take the passive stance A does not 'exist', which then, because there are only two possible states, leads me to passively being saying that A does 'not exist'. Only when I actively state I do not know am I making a claim where what I am stating the value of if A exist is not set (or more so, it is set, I do not know which one).
As to science, science science is not a person who is able to believe in things. Science is a discipline which works under only empirical evidence. God has no empirical evidence point to Him. So before we even start using science, we can assume God is not going to ever be invoked by science. I think the issue here is we are trying to turn science into a person with beliefs or views, and saying that science has this view or that view.
I start off by saying either A (using different variables here to reduce possible confusion) does or does not exist.
Yes. This is correct. But that does not mean that science actively or passively denies the existence of God.So before we even start using science, we can assume God is not going to ever be invoked by science.
Anthropomorphizing science to relate the axioms used in preforming it to a person and their beliefs is in fact a valid tactic that gets the point across. But science is not an actual person, you are correct.I think the issue here is we are trying to turn science into a person with beliefs or views, and saying that science has this view or that view.
What I originally stated is that science works from the view point of no God, because, being that God is non-empirical and that science is only empirical, we can see that science cannot ever use God as an answer unless the nature of God changes.
Especially because evolution only deals with life after its formation. How life changing could be responsible for creating the universe I haven’t the foggiest.No duh. Anyone who believes that evolution can create universes (outside of works of fiction, of course) is wrong.
Why can't you become one? If a "young-earth special creationist" changes his views based on his understanding of the evidence and accepts creationism through evolutionary processes, hasn't he "become a theistic evolutionist"? Or am I missing your point?I don't think you can actually become one. I think it just matters what you believe. If you believe that God created the universe using evolution then you sure are wrong but that would still make you a Theistic Evolutionist.
I think what many of us are suggesting is that you exercise more discipline in your use of these terms.
Actually, I find this even more confusing than your earlier posts on this topic. As I see it there are three possible positions: A exists. (claim) A does not exist (rejection of claim) I do not know if A exists or does not exist (ignorance). You seem to be conflating rejection and ignorance.
But not everyone here is, no? Anyways, science is one of those terms where it takes a book to fully define it. Kinda like 'love'.Since several people responding to you are professional scientists (not myself) it is probably not a good idea to think they don't know what they mean by "science".
I agree that science cannot test God, and thus either accept or reject Him. I am saying that science rejects the supernatural as part of its foundation.I think an important point is that not invoking God does not imply rejecting God. It does not even imply that God is not present in the scientific process in some way. For theists, the reason God is not invoked is not based on an assumption of God's absence, but on an assumption of God's constant presence. But this makes God also an untestable invariable. We cannot make an observation or perform an experiment from which God can be excluded.
This does not seem to differ between rejection and ignoring.So, from a theistic perspective, science does not invoke God as an explanation of natural process because God is not a testable variable whose presence or absence makes a difference---since God is always present and sustaining the world of nature as it is.
Only as much as it treats Thor, magical gnomes which hold the planets together, and any other things I can think of as non empirically testable variables.So it is incorrect to say that science works from the view point of no God. Science works from the view point that God is not an empirically testable variable.
You may not see a difference in those statements, but theologically there is a world of difference.
So? No one is claiming that "theistic" is a scientific part of "theistic evolution". All of the science of "theistic evolution" is already in biology textbooks, just like all of the science of "theistic chemistry" is already in chemistry texts and all of the science of "theistic physics" is already in physics texts and all of the math of "theistic math" is already in mathematics texts.
The theistic part is in theological texts like the bible.
You do mean the theistic part of theistic evolution, not the entire thing, right?
Finally, any Intelligent agency must itself have some form of information (the mere fact we attribute the status of intelligent or agency is information). Where then did this information come from?
Is anyone here arguing that?I am only saying that the idea of a deity of whatever nature being behind evolution does not belong in the science class.
I am only saying that the idea of a deity of whatever nature being behind evolution does not belong in the science class. Because a guiding force behind evolution is not a scientific idea.
I have no problem with theistic evolution being taught in religion classes.
I mean the entire thing. Any religous belief is not scientific, because it can't be tested and it can't be falsified.
I completely agree with this.I am only saying that the idea of a deity of whatever nature being behind evolution does not belong in the science class.
Is anyone here arguing that?
Sure. But again, is anyone here arguing that?And yet you have people in the USA who want to teach ID in the classroom.
Are you serious? They're not at all the same. Even Dembski has said, "Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution."What is ID other than theistic evolution (at best) in disguise?
And yet you have people in the USA who want to teach ID in the classroom. What is ID other than theistic evolution (at best) in disguise?
Do you have any idea what Theistic Evolution actually is? If not, please re-read the posts made earlier, look it up, and realise that TE and ID are completely different beasts.
Oh, come on now. I know Mooney isn't a creationist I read the book. The problem is that if you look at Mooney/Nisbet through the lens of their recent publications, all you can see on this issue is sympathy and support for theistic evolutionists.
And, I'm sorry, but theistic evolutionists are creationists. They're just creationists who accept evidence and readily back off from specific claims about their creator god, but they still place faith in unwarranted assumptions about the existence and interventions of a supernatural being, they just tuck it into the gaps in our knowledge. What makes theistic evolution somewhat acceptable to scientists is that its proponents are so willing to run away from their faith when challenged.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?