How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?

[gluadys]

This may be (I haven't heard this exact summary of ID, but I won't say that it is wrong), but if this is the case, then ID will have to provide some way of determining which biological structures are capable of arising through evolution by natural selection and which structures can only come about through the intervention of a higher power. it would also have to provide examples of such structures.

ID of any definition would also have to explain why the bits done by the intelligent designer look just like they were evolved.

In fact, as long as ID refuses to outline the process a designer uses, it has to explain why design cannot evolve. Maybe the bits done by the intelligent designer look like they were evolved because they were. Maybe that was the production process the designer chose to use.

 

[Willtor]

This may be (I haven't heard this exact summary of ID, but I won't say that it is wrong), but if this is the case, then ID will have to provide some way of determining which biological structures are capable of arising through evolution by natural selection and which structures can only come about through the intervention of a higher power. it would also have to provide examples of such structures.

ID of any definition would also have to explain why the bits done by the intelligent designer look just like they were evolved.

Indeed. And I can only speak to what Behe wrote in "Darwin's Black Box." He has a notion of irreducible complexity: complex systems that would not provide benefit (or might cause harm) if one of the parts were removed. He cites a number of examples (e.g., blood clotting, the flagellum, etc.). They have all been debunked, however.

 

[2 King]

Science and the Bible are not contradictory.

 

[gluadys]

Science and the Bible are not contradictory.

Would you care to elaborate?

Not that I disagree, but I have seen everyone from the most fundamentalist of anti-evolutionists to the most ardent theistic evolutionists say the same thing.

 

[JusSumguy]

Science and the Bible are not contradictory.

Would you care to elaborate? Not that I disagree, but I have seen everyone from the most fundamentalist of anti-evolutionists to the most ardent theistic evolutionists say the same thing.

I repeat---> Science and the Bible are not contradictory.

Maybe you should elaborate on how they are contradictory, if that's what you believe.


-

 

[gluadys]

I repeat---> Science and the Bible are not contradictory.

Maybe you should elaborate on how they are contradictory, if that's what you believe.


-

Actually I do agree. Science and the Bible are not contradictory.

But people can have very different things in mind when they say that. For example one person may hold on the basis of science that the earth is over 4 billion years old and that this does not contradict the bible and another may hold on the basis of scripture that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that this does not contradict science.

So just saying that "science and the bible are not contradictory" doesn't give much information about what a person believes about either science or the bible.