How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?

[John 10:10]

That's because science is science whether the scientist is godless or god-fearing.

There is no God-less theory of evolution any more than there is a God-less theory of atomic structure. There is only a scientific theory of evolution, just like in the rest of science.

And just as there is no reason for a devout scientist and an agnostic scientist to be disagreeing about atomic structure, there is no reason for them to be disagreeing about evolution.

I promise to end on this point, but I could not let this assertion go unchallenged.

The wonders of God's creation and the truths/laws God put in place that govern His creation are true for the unbeliever in Creator God as they are for the Believer in Creator God, and so is the science that truly validates the wonders of God's creation.

But when unbelievers postulate a ToE whereby they say life evolved from the first life form, then developed into the first plant and animal species, then evolved to all the other plant and animal species that have ever existed, and now say this is "FACT" validated in a laboratory to a high degree of accuracy as all other scientific FACTS are validated, then I say this kind of Godless science is not true God science at all. When Believers in Creator God basically say the same thing, then they too are condoning a pseudoscience that is not true God science at all.

Blessings

 

[gluadys]

I promise to end on this point, but I could not let this assertion go unchallenged.

The wonders of God's creation and the truths/laws God put in place that govern His creation are true for the unbeliever in Creator God as they are for the Believer in Creator God, and so is the science that truly validates the wonders of God's creation.

Amen

But when unbelievers postulate a ToE whereby they say life evolved from the first life form, then developed into the first plant and animal species, then evolved to all the other plant and animal species that have ever existed, and now say this is "FACT" validated in a laboratory to a high degree of accuracy as all other scientific FACTS are validated, then I say this kind of Godless science is not true God science at all.

You may say so, but that doesn't make it true. You have not shown that there is a God-less theory of evolution.

To say that life evolved from the first life form, then developed into the first plant and animal (and bacterial and fungal, etc.) species and into all other kinds of species is not a way of saying there is no God. It is perfectly sensible to see this as God's method of providing the earth with many diverse living species.

And to say that it is valid science is simply to state a fact which again in no way repudiates God.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I promise to end on this point, but I could not let this assertion go unchallenged.

The wonders of God's creation and the truths/laws God put in place that govern His creation are true for the unbeliever in Creator God as they are for the Believer in Creator God, and so is the science that truly validates the wonders of God's creation.

Which is why theistic evolution and atheistic evolution sound so similar... they're drawing on the same facts.

But when unbelievers postulate a ToE whereby they say life evolved from the first life form, then developed into the first plant and animal species, then evolved to all the other plant and animal species that have ever existed, and now say this is "FACT" validated in a laboratory to a high degree of accuracy as all other scientific FACTS are validated, then I say this kind of Godless science is not true God science at all. When Believers in Creator God basically say the same thing, then they too are condoning a pseudoscience that is not true God science at all.

So how are you not contradicting yourself? Nobody who understands science is going to take what "you say" all that seriously at that point.

 

[JusSumguy]

To say that life evolved from the first life form, then developed into the first plant and animal (and bacterial and fungal, etc.) species and into all other kinds of species is not a way of saying there is no God. It is perfectly sensible to see this as God's method of providing the earth with many diverse living species.

And to say that it is valid science is simply to state a fact which again in no way repudiates God.

It seems to me that you're suggesting that life started all on it's own. If not............ never mind.

If this is so, please tell us which research camp you would be putting your money behind?

The DNA protein model, or the RNA world model?

Or is this an educated hunch?


-

 

[Tiberius]

No, old-earth creationists are like young-earth creationists in respect to evolution. i.e. they reject evolution. They differ in that they accept the geological age of the earth.

I've met OEC who accept evolution. Perhaps it's an individual choice...

You are assuming that non-theistic evolution excludes God. It doesn't. Science is neutral with respect to God. Since non-theistic evolution does not exclude God, there is no need for the theist to add God. One's personal beliefs about God does not change the science of evolution any more than it changes the science of relativity.

How can something be non-theistic and yet include God? Doesn't the inclusion of Gopd make it theistic by definition?

We don't. Belief in God is our theological position. We hold that evolutionary theory in no way compromises our theological position that God is the Creator of all things.

If evolution becomes theistic evolution simply because the person believes in God, does that mean you believe in theistic geography, theistic mathematics and theistic photography as well?

No, we would say that God is just as much required for non-theistic evolution as for theistic evolution. But this is a theological position, not a difference in scientific approach. By the same token an atheist would say that God (being an illusion) is just as absent from theistic evolution as from non-theistic evolution. And that is also a theological position, not a scientific approach.

You say that God is required for non-theistic evolution? But as an atheist, I say that God is not required for evolution period, whatever word is attached before it. Doesn't science seek to eliminate the subjective? So how can evolution be viewed as theistic when the very idea of theology is subjective? How can the subjective be applied to something that seeks to be as objective as possible?

Believe you me, that is exactly what most TEs would prefer to do. To speak of "theistic evolution" is as redundant as to speak of "theistic gravitation" or "theistic photosynthesis". The term has been forced by the rampant association of evolution with atheism. It is a reminder that science is indeed neutral with respect to God and therefore a theist may accept the science of evolution on the same basis as accepting gravity or photosynthesis. Does our Christian belief "add God" to the theory of relativity or the process of photosynthesis? Do we need special Christian textbooks on physics or botany to account for these? Of course not! No more do we need special textbooks for evolutionary biology. Yet from a Christian viewpoint God is not absent from gravity or photosynthesis any more than from evolution.

While this answers a question I posed above, it seems to me that the inclusion of a statement of faith is a non sequiter here. If we both agree that the the process of evolution is scientific in nature, then why the need to add a statement of faith? It's unrequired in this, yes, as it adds nothing to the understanding of the process.

As I said from the perception (promoted both by atheists and believers) that evolution is necessarily atheistic rather than neutral with respect to God. Theistic evolution is not a special scientific position. It is a theological stance that insists on the theological neutrality of evolution and therefore that evolution is as acceptable to a Christian view of the world as any other science.

Evolution is atheistic in the sense that it does not require a God in order to work. There's no part of evolution where we need to say, "And this is where God goes, and if he's not here the whole thing doesn't work."

But evolution has never denied the existence of God anymore than it has denied the existence of fairies. God is just not something that evolution is concerned with. Just as photosynthesis is not something that concerns electrical theory.

The whole idea of theism (not restricted to the topic of evolution) is that nothing works perfectly well without God. That is as true of chemistry as of evolution.

Unless there is a part of evolution where God is required, this point of view is a subjective one, not objective. And being subjective, it doesn't belong in science.

 

[Mick116]

I've met OEC who accept evolution. Perhaps it's an individual choice...

Most would refer to your friend as a "theistic evolutionist" or an "evolutionary creationist", rather than an "old earth creationist"; there are some "intelligent design" proponents who accept common descent while rejecting much of evolutionary theory (Michael Behe springs to mind).

How can something be non-theistic and yet include God? Doesn't the inclusion of Gopd make it theistic by definition?

All gluadys is saying is that on the one hand, we have the scientific theory of evolution, and on the other we have theism, which is a theological worldview, and definitely not science. It is somewhat inaccurate to refer to the "theory" (which is a scientific descriptor) of "theistic evolution" (which describes a theological worldview which incoroporates a scientific theory). Hope this makes sense.

If evolution becomes theistic evolution simply because the person believes in God, does that mean you believe in theistic geography, theistic mathematics and theistic photography as well?

This is true, "theistic evolution" has as much usefulness as a descriptor as "theistic meterology", "theistic geology" or "theistic mathematics"; the only difference is that the scientific theory of evolution has become culturally loaded to incorporate atheism, which is a worldview, and definitely not part of the scientific theory.

In the end, just as there is no "atheistic theory of evolution", so there is no "theistic theory of evolution". Neither are "theories" in the scientific sense of the word.

You say that God is required for non-theistic evolution? But as an atheist, I say that God is not required for evolution period, whatever word is attached before it. Doesn't science seek to eliminate the subjective? So how can evolution be viewed as theistic when the very idea of theology is subjective? How can the subjective be applied to something that seeks to be as objective as possible?

Theology is not science (although it borrows many of its methods from science, and is certainly not purely "subjective"). If the term "theistic evolution" can be used at all, it is for a theology which incorporates a scientific theory. And for a theist, God is seen in everything; evolution is not viewed as theistic any more or less than any other scientific theory.

While this answers a question I posed above, it seems to me that the inclusion of a statement of faith is a non sequiter here. If we both agree that the the process of evolution is scientific in nature, then why the need to add a statement of faith? It's unrequired in this, yes, as it adds nothing to the understanding of the process.

As above, one can be a theist who accepts evolution, or an atheist who accepts evolution. Either way, the theory stands.

Evolution is atheistic in the sense that it does not require a God in order to work. There's no part of evolution where we need to say, "And this is where God goes, and if he's not here the whole thing doesn't work."

A theist would say that everything requires God to work, if God is the sustainer of the universe. Evolution is a scientific theory, and is based on empircal evidence; because the existence or non-existence of God is completely outside of a scientist's ability to observe, evolutionary theory cannot be theistic nor atheistic in nature; a scientific theory cannot make statements outside of what is detectable using scientific methods.

But evolution has never denied the existence of God anymore than it has denied the existence of fairies. God is just not something that evolution is concerned with. Just as photosynthesis is not something that concerns electrical theory.

Photosynthesis is a scientific theory as is electrical theory; evolution is a scientific theory, but belief in God is not. The existence of God is not falsifiable, so is not a scientific theory.

Unless there is a part of evolution where God is required, this point of view is a subjective one, not objective. And being subjective, it doesn't belong in science.

Theology is not a part of science.

 

[Tiberius]

All gluadys is saying is that on the one hand, we have the scientific theory of evolution, and on the other we have theism, which is a theological worldview, and definitely not science. It is somewhat inaccurate to refer to the "theory" (which is a scientific descriptor) of "theistic evolution" (which describes a theological worldview which incoroporates a scientific theory). Hope this makes sense.

Not really. Gluadys said that theistic and non theistic evolution involves God. If both are identical in every way, why the distinction?

This is true, "theistic evolution" has as much usefulness as a descriptor as "theistic meterology", "theistic geology" or "theistic mathematics"; the only difference is that the scientific theory of evolution has become culturally loaded to incorporate atheism, which is a worldview, and definitely not part of the scientific theory.

But given that theology and evolution are totaly separate fields, doesn't the label of "theistic" added to evolution serve only to advertise the opinion of the person in something that has no bearing to evolution? It's like saying that someone is a flat-earth computer technician. It has no place in the name of their field of study.

In the end, just as there is no "atheistic theory of evolution", so there is no "theistic theory of evolution". Neither are "theories" in the scientific sense of the word.

Evolution is most certainly a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

Theology is not science (although it borrows many of its methods from science, and is certainly not purely "subjective").

I'm curious - what theologic processes stem from science?

If the term "theistic evolution" can be used at all, it is for a theology which incorporates a scientific theory. And for a theist, God is seen in everything; evolution is not viewed as theistic any more or less than any other scientific theory.

As I said earlier, a label advertising the person's religious stance doesn't really have any effect on a scientific position. And if it does, it would go against what was said earlier, that there's no difference between theistic and nontheistic evolution.

As above, one can be a theist who accepts evolution, or an atheist who accepts evolution. Either way, the theory stands.

But the theory does not depend on the "theistic" or "non-theistic" labels. They don't belong.

A theist would say that everything requires God to work, if God is the sustainer of the universe.

But as far as I know, they have never been able to show exactly what job God performs. They have every right to believe that God is required for evolution, but ultimately they don't need to say "This is the bit that God does" when it comes to evolution.

Evolution is a scientific theory, and is based on empircal evidence; because the existence or non-existence of God is completely outside of a scientist's ability to observe, evolutionary theory cannot be theistic nor atheistic in nature; a scientific theory cannot make statements outside of what is detectable using scientific methods.

Photosynthesis is a scientific theory as is electrical theory; evolution is a scientific theory, but belief in God is not. The existence of God is not falsifiable, so is not a scientific theory.

Theology is not a part of science.

This is the root of my confusion. If theology is not a science, how can it be attached to a scientific theory?

 

[gluadys]

It seems to me that you're suggesting that life started all on it's own. If not............ never mind.

The idea that anything in nature works on its own is foreign to me. I do not separate nature into "what God does in nature" and "what nature does on its own". Everything nature does is what God does in nature.

Also I was not speaking of how life started, but of the evolution of life from the first life form.

If this is so, please tell us which research camp you would be putting your money behind?

The DNA protein model, or the RNA world model?

Or is this an educated hunch?


-

Not being a scientist myself, I will hedge my bets for the time being. I remember a former poster, lucaspa, who is a scientist favored the DNA protein model but there is a lot of merit in the RNA world model too. If I had money for research, I would divide it between both until it was clearer which is producing favorable results.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Amen



You may say so, but that doesn't make it true. You have not shown that there is a God-less theory of evolution.

To say that life evolved from the first life form, then developed into the first plant and animal (and bacterial and fungal, etc.) species and into all other kinds of species is not a way of saying there is no God. It is perfectly sensible to see this as God's method of providing the earth with many diverse living species.

And to say that it is valid science is simply to state a fact which again in no way repudiates God.

QFT

 

[gluadys]

Not really. Gluadys said that theistic and non theistic evolution involves God. If both are identical in every way, why the distinction?

Social history.

But given that theology and evolution are totaly separate fields, doesn't the label of "theistic" added to evolution serve only to advertise the opinion of the person in something that has no bearing to evolution? It's like saying that someone is a flat-earth computer technician. It has no place in the name of their field of study.

Quite right. And you will find that theistic evolutionists who are scientists do not involve their theology in their science. Ken Miller's Catholic beliefs have no place in his studies of cellular biology. Nor should they.

Evolution is most certainly a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

Quite right.

I'm curious - what theologic processes stem from science?

This wasn't my claim and I don't know that I agree with it. But John Polkinghorne the UK physicist cum theologian has put out a comparison of scientific procedure and theological procedure in coming to a consensus on what is true. I'll see if I can find which of his books it is in if you like.

As I said earlier, a label advertising the person's religious stance doesn't really have any effect on a scientific position. And if it does, it would go against what was said earlier, that there's no difference between theistic and nontheistic evolution.

Right.

Indeed, the only reason to make the point that one is a theist and accepts the scientific position on evolution is to make the point that this is an acceptable theological position---a necessity when many in both Christian and non-Christian circles assume that theism requires the rejection of evolution.

But the theory does not depend on the "theistic" or "non-theistic" labels. They don't belong.

Right--in science they don't belong.

But as far as I know, they have never been able to show exactly what job God performs. They have every right to believe that God is required for evolution, but ultimately they don't need to say "This is the bit that God does" when it comes to evolution.

Now here is where you touch on the basic difference between the intelligent design camp and theistic evolution. ID proponents claim to be able to pick out certain bits that God does and say such bits are detectable because normal evolutionary process are incapable of accounting for them.

TEs reject the notion that you can divide existence into the bit God does and the bit that exists on its own. God does it all. And we look at it and describe how God does it. And we call that description "science".

Evolution is a scientific theory, and is based on empircal evidence; because the existence or non-existence of God is completely outside of a scientist's ability to observe, evolutionary theory cannot be theistic nor atheistic in nature; a scientific theory cannot make statements outside of what is detectable using scientific methods.

Agreed. In full.

This is the root of my confusion. If theology is not a science, how can it be attached to a scientific theory?

I hope I have clarified that it is not a matter of attaching theology to science. It is a matter of taking a theological position that this scientific theory is one that can be welcomed in a theistic world view. And the science does not need to be limited or doctored or qualified in any way to do so.

 

[Drekkan85]

Indeed I question whether you're being deliberately obtuse Tiberius. It seems a rather simple matter for me, and maybe this will clarify:

Science: Theory of Evolution

Worldview: Theistic Evolution, Athiestic Evolution.

It's the same process. Science, by necessity of naturalistic observation and testing for its conclusions, must be agnostic to the theistic and atheistic world views. Both of our sides recognize evolution, and the process of evolution by common descent. Where we differ is in an interpretation that only comes into play outside of the science room.

The reason why some of us fight hard for that TE label is related to the way certain members of the scientific community have damaged their own constituency as it were. They portray evolution as being in conflict with religion and defacto being an atheistic point of view. That's why it is somewhat necessary to qualify that, indeed, evolution says nothing about the presence of God, and you can believe in the most high while still accepting ToE via Natural Selection.

 

[Tiberius]

Social history.

It still adds nothing, though, just as it adds nothing for me to say I am a heliocentric photographer.

Quite right. And you will find that theistic evolutionists who are scientists do not involve their theology in their science. Ken Miller's Catholic beliefs have no place in his studies of cellular biology. Nor should they.

And yet it is done...

I'm not saying they can't, I'm simply saying that I don't see that it does anything.

Quite right.

Glad we agree.

This wasn't my claim and I don't know that I agree with it. But John Polkinghorne the UK physicist cum theologian has put out a comparison of scientific procedure and theological procedure in coming to a consensus on what is true. I'll see if I can find which of his books it is in if you like.

I was responding to Mick116's claim that theology "borrows many of its methods from science, and is certainly not purely 'subjective'."

Right.

Indeed, the only reason to make the point that one is a theist and accepts the scientific position on evolution is to make the point that this is an acceptable theological position---a necessity when many in both Christian and non-Christian circles assume that theism requires the rejection of evolution.

While I'd agree that an acceptance of evolution would probably make it hard to be a young earth creationist, I'm not aware of any scientific position that evolution dismisses theological belief in all its forms. Indeed, it's mostly believers who hold the position that evolution threatens belief.

Right--in science they don't belong.

Agreed, such labels don't belong in science. Hence my confusion. I don't see why they are being appended to the name evolution.

Now here is where you touch on the basic difference between the intelligent design camp and theistic evolution. ID proponents claim to be able to pick out certain bits that God does and say such bits are detectable because normal evolutionary process are incapable of accounting for them.

TEs reject the notion that you can divide existence into the bit God does and the bit that exists on its own. God does it all. And we look at it and describe how God does it. And we call that description "science".

This is another bit that has me confused. You say that God has a part in every thing that happens, but the science of biology, evolution etc seems to work fine without requiring a god, at least to me.

Agreed. In full.

I hope I have clarified that it is not a matter of attaching theology to science. It is a matter of taking a theological position that this scientific theory is one that can be welcomed in a theistic world view. And the science does not need to be limited or doctored or qualified in any way to do so.

This I understand, but it seems to me that adding the label "theistic" not only sounds like an attempt to connect evolution with theological beliefs, but also separates it from non-theistic evolution.

Indeed I question whether you're being deliberately obtuse Tiberius.

Oh, thank you...

It seems a rather simple matter for me, and maybe this will clarify:

Science: Theory of Evolution

Worldview: Theistic Evolution, Athiestic Evolution.

It's the same process. Science, by necessity of naturalistic observation and testing for its conclusions, must be agnostic to the theistic and atheistic world views. Both of our sides recognize evolution, and the process of evolution by common descent. Where we differ is in an interpretation that only comes into play outside of the science room.

As I said before, this seems to be simply the attachment of a label that is totally unrelated to the topic.

The reason why some of us fight hard for that TE label is related to the way certain members of the scientific community have damaged their own constituency as it were. They portray evolution as being in conflict with religion and defacto being an atheistic point of view. That's why it is somewhat necessary to qualify that, indeed, evolution says nothing about the presence of God, and you can believe in the most high while still accepting ToE via Natural Selection.

In my experience, it is members of religious groups who claim that evolution is incompatible with religion. I've yet to see a scientist claim that a believer cannot also accept evolution. But I have seen many times believers say that evolution cannot be accepted alongside God.

 

[Dark_Lite]

In my experience, it is members of religious groups who claim that evolution is incompatible with religion. I've yet to see a scientist claim that a believer cannot also accept evolution. But I have seen many times believers say that evolution cannot be accepted alongside God.

It can go both ways. There are some atheists who make the same erroneous equivalency as YECs do with literalness and truth.

 

[Mick116]

Not really. Gluadys said that theistic and non theistic evolution involves God. If both are identical in every way, why the distinction?

I think she was saying that evolution does not incorprate the idea of "God" into the scientific theory; in other words, to describe evolution as "theistic" or "atheistic" makes absolutely no difference to the science incolved.

But given that theology and evolution are totaly separate fields, doesn't the label of "theistic" added to evolution serve only to advertise the opinion of the person in something that has no bearing to evolution? It's like saying that someone is a flat-earth computer technician. It has no place in the name of their field of study.

Agreed.

Evolution is most certainly a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

Agreed. And adding the description "theistic" or "atheistic" doesn't change the theory at all.

I'm curious - what theologic processes stem from science?

There is only a loose connection; theology will reject ideas which can be shown to be false (e.g. by science), or inconsistent with other ideas within theology (e.g. to say that every single event in history is predestined by God alone is incompatible with the idea that humans possess a measure of free will; one or the other must be rejected). Similar to scientific hypotheses, theological systems which fail to work are rejected (but unlike science, the objects of study in theology are not readily observable, which creates a "messier" environment in which to theologise (i.e. there are disagreements aplenty, and any agreements tend to be quite broad); objective standards which are agreed upon within a tradition (e.g. scriptures or creeds) serve to keep theologies from going entirely to the whim of the theologian).

In the end, both theology and science seek after truth, but are dealing with different levels of reality (I've heard it once said that science can be considered a sub-discipline within theology, which is an idea that I don't completely disagree with).

As I said earlier, a label advertising the person's religious stance doesn't really have any effect on a scientific position.

Agreed.

And if it does, it would go against what was said earlier, that there's no difference between theistic and nontheistic evolution.

The theory remains the same, no matter the philosophy or theology of the evolutionist in question.

But the theory does not depend on the "theistic" or "non-theistic" labels. They don't belong.

Agreed.

But as far as I know, they have never been able to show exactly what job God performs. They have every right to believe that God is required for evolution, but ultimately they don't need to say "This is the bit that God does" when it comes to evolution.

Because God is believed to sustain it all, there is no "job" which God does which can be identified or separated from the rest of the evolving creation.

This is the root of my confusion. If theology is not a science, how can it be attached to a scientific theory?

Theology is not science. As it stands, "theistic evolutionist" is simply shorthand to describe a theist who finds value in the scientific theory of evolution. The adjective "theistic" doesn't alter the theory itself, a theory which has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God.

 

[sfs]

It still adds nothing, though, just as it adds nothing for me to say I am a heliocentric photographer.

"Heliocentric photographer" adds the information that you accept a heliocentric model of the solar system. That isn't likely to be news to anyone, since very few people of any stripe reject heliocentrism, something that is not true of evolution. In the case of "theistic evolutionist", information is being conveyed about the person who hold the two views in question. Whether it is useful information or not depends on the context.

Agreed, such labels don't belong in science. Hence my confusion. I don't see why they are being appended to the name evolution.

They're not being appended within science. They're being appended in a context in which the fact that one accepts both theism and evolution is of interest. Since the information is of interest to many hearers (as it obviously is, in the context of discussions of creation and evolution), what possible reason could there be for not expressing it?

This is another bit that has me confused. You say that God has a part in every thing that happens, but the science of biology, evolution etc seems to work fine without requiring a god, at least to me.

Science does a great job of explaining how bits of stuff work in terms of the behavior of other bits of stuff. It offers no ultimate explanations. Biology works fine at the job it is intended to do, but doesn't work at all in addressing the questions theism answers. (Whether theism does a good job in that arena is a matter of opinion, of course.)

This I understand, but it seems to me that adding the label "theistic" not only sounds like an attempt to connect evolution with theological beliefs, but also separates it from non-theistic evolution.

As several people have told you, your impression is wrong. That is not what the phrase "theistic evolution" is intended to accomplish, nor does it have that effect on most people. Language is a social phenomenon, and to understand how it works you have to consider how most speakers and hearers are using it. "Theistic evolution" is used in contexts where there is considerable dispute about whether evolution is intrinsically atheistic or not, and about whether Christianity requires the rejection of the science of evolution. It functions as a marker in those debates, not in the way you suggest.

 

[gluadys]

This is another bit that has me confused. You say that God has a part in every thing that happens, but the science of biology, evolution etc seems to work fine without requiring a god, at least to me.

Well, I would expect that. Apparently to you, a god would only relate to a scientific theory as a component of the theory--as someone or something that has to be part of the description of how a process works. Like the cartoon (I'm sure you've seen it) that has an equation that is broken by the words "a miracle happens here".

If that is the sense in which a god must be "required" I would agree with you that the science of biology, evolution, etc. works fine without requiring a god.

But as a theist, that is not what I mean when I think of God as necessary to nature. As Mick says, there is no "job" which God does which can be identified or separated from the rest of the evolving creation. That's why God's work does not appear either as a part of or as an addition to a scientific theory. It is rather the whole as it is which we see as the work of God.

In my experience, it is members of religious groups who claim that evolution is incompatible with religion. I've yet to see a scientist claim that a believer cannot also accept evolution. But I have seen many times believers say that evolution cannot be accepted alongside God.

Well, here are some of the statements that have been thrown at me as evidence that some scientists do claim a believer cannot accept evolution:

In the keynote address for the second Darwin Day celebration in 1998, Darwinian
philosopher of science William Provine summarized the implications of
Darwinism in this way: "Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin
understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death
exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning
in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”


Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin: "We take the side of science in
spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its
failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in
spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated
just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism (i.e., naturalism). It is not that the methods and institutions
of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the
phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori
adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a
set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how
counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover,
that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the
door."

[Provine’s] fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, famously
said, 'Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.'

George Gaylord Simpson (the dean of neo-Darwinists) expressed what
Darwinism entails about
human existence in this way:"Man is the result of a purposeless and natural
process that did not have him in mind."​

To many in the general public, statements such as these mean scientists (at least some of them) have claimed that a believer cannot accept evolution.

Yet it is an eerie complicated relationship, because most people would not know of these statements if believers who reject evolution did not track them down and publicize them. I got all of these from posts made on another forum by a supporter of ID who believes, on the basis of statements like these, that evolution has inherent atheistic implications.

Another aspect of this is that although scientists (and a philosopher of science) made these statements---none of them are scientific statements and I think they would all agree they are not. These are personal opinions, not conclusions based on scientific research.

But again, to much of the general public, any statement made by a prominent scientist carries the weight of scientific authority.

So whether the perception is justified or not, it is the case that many people do think scientists themselves have ruled out any co-existence between theism and the theory of evolution.

 

[Tiberius]

It seems to me then that the thread's OP is simply asking, "How does one become an evolutionist?" (although I hesitate to use the term).

Thus, a person's religious beliefs play no part in it. To become an evolutionist, one simp,y needs to look at the eivdence. If one accepts the evidence and concludes that evolution has occured, then one is an evolutionist. If one deicdes that evolution has not occured (for whatever reason), then one is not an evolutionist.

 

[gluadys]

It seems to me then that the thread's OP is simply asking, "How does one become an evolutionist?" (although I hesitate to use the term).

Thus, a person's religious beliefs play no part in it. To become an evolutionist, one simp,y needs to look at the eivdence. If one accepts the evidence and concludes that evolution has occured, then one is an evolutionist. If one deicdes that evolution has not occured (for whatever reason), then one is not an evolutionist.

Mostly right. But if one has been of the mind that a Christian must reject evolution for theological reasons, it is also asking, "how does it change my theology to accept evolution?"

 

[Mick116]

It seems to me then that the thread's OP is simply asking, "How does one become an evolutionist?" (although I hesitate to use the term).

Thus, a person's religious beliefs play no part in it. To become an evolutionist, one simp,y needs to look at the eivdence. If one accepts the evidence and concludes that evolution has occured, then one is an evolutionist. If one deicdes that evolution has not occured (for whatever reason), then one is not an evolutionist.

If a young-earth creationist accepts evolution, he or she will usually have to reject at least part of his or her religion in the process; seen from this perspective, I would say that one's religious beliefs do, in fact, make a difference in the process, even if it is a rejection of certain religious beliefs.

And here, too, the description "theistic evolutionist" describes one who accepts evolution while remaining a Christian, rather than one who accepts evolution and ceases to believe. As sfs said above, the context in which the phrase is used is important.

 

[JusSumguy]

If a young-earth creationist accepts evolution, he or she will usually have to reject at least part of his or her religion in the process; seen from this perspective, I would say that one's religious beliefs do, in fact, make a difference in the process, even if it is a rejection of certain religious beliefs.

And here, too, the description "theistic evolutionist" describes one who accepts evolution while remaining a Christian, rather than one who accepts evolution and ceases to believe. As sfs said above, the context in which the phrase is used is important.

So....... one must compromise their religion to be a TE?


-