How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?

[juvenissun]

Do we teach them to evaluate general relativity, quantum mechanics, x ray diffraction, organic chemistry? Why should any scientific study of God's universe be an issue whether they chose to learn about it or ignore because science is not their forte. Who tells them evolution is an enemy? Other believers who only understand, or only teach, strawman version. People learn the strawman and like you don't want to learn more. So kids in church are taught how evil evolution is and how if evolution is true the bible is a lie, and their faith is strengthened by all the strawman proofs that show evolution is wrong and the bible (or the interpretation of it) is right. Then the children are sent out into the world armoured in straw. Is it any wonder so many children or YECs have their faith shattered when they learn the truth about evolution and their armour of straw is consumed in the fire?

It is a problem. Church usually does not have time to teach details of creationism even if it is possible. For example, even I am willing to introduce some details about evolution in my church, first, there is no time, and second, there is a lack of interest. Even in my Sunday School class, when I got just a little bit deeper into the argument of evolution, people started to yawn, and I do not want to continue.

Young people drifted away from faith when exposed to evolution. Well that is too bad. Hope they will come back in their later life. Those do not drift away are very blessed.

 

[juvenissun]

First, they should not take any conclusion as definitive until they do understand it. Second, they should learn it well enough to understand it, at least at a basic level. If they are not willing to do that much, they should admit they don't know enough to make an evaluation and leave the question unanswered.

What they should not do is say, in effect, "I don't understand evolution, so it must be wrong."

I wish they will do what you said. Unfortunately, most of them don't.

 

[Mallon]

I can give you a list. But it is simply a waste.
If you don't think I am scientist, then be it. I don't care.

Somehow I knew you'd say that.
How about just telling us which university you teach and research at?

 

[Willtor]

I can give you a list. But it is simply a waste.
If you don't think I am scientist, then be it. I don't care.

This _is_ a lot like Kent Hovind. Both insist they are scientists but when called on it and asked for a paper, they act nonchalant and say they don't care whether you believe them.

Seriously, Juvenissun, if you really didn't care you wouldn't bring it up except in the context of presenting your work.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Simple. The Bible is not, nor was it meant to be, a scientifically and geographically accurate description of how the earth was formed.

That's very hard to explain to creationists, who would wonder why God would give us poetry than for a biblical account of how He did the whole "creation" thing.

Genesis is poetry, it's allegorical. I don't believe the authors ever even intended it to be used as a scientific explanation as some do. The message of Genesis is that God created, and because He created, it's good and holds meaning.

That's opinion.

How exactly God created simply does not matter, it's not essential to my salvation and evolution does not threaten Christianity.

Of course. But is it a fact that it dosen't threaten christianity.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Interpreting metaphor as metaphor is rarely a bad thing.

Someone said earlier that the Bible in no way's says it to be read literally, though the same would be vice-versa. So, TE's read Creation as metaphor for the same reason Creationists read it as a truth?

 

[gluadys]

Someone said earlier that the Bible in no way's says it to be read literally, though the same would be vice-versa. So, TE's read Creation as metaphor for the same reason Creationists read it as a truth?

Ohh, bad contrast. TEs read the creation story metaphorically; creationists read it as science. Both science and metaphor can be truth. They are just different ways of presenting truth. So when TEs read the creation story metaphorically they are also reading it as a truth---just as much as creationists think they are.

 

[sfs]

That's very hard to explain to creationists, who would wonder why God would give us poetry than for a biblical account of how He did the whole "creation" thing.

So creationists think God prefers prose? Or do they simply prefer prose, and assume God shares their taste? What exactly is their argument here?

That's opinion.

Of course it's opinion, although it is opinion that is backed by plenty of scholarship. Is not the belief that Genesis was intended to be a historical, scientific description also opinion?

Of course. But is it a fact that it dosen't threaten christianity.

I suspect that every idea that explains some part of the world in natural terms, or that lets us manipulate the world better, is a threat at some level to religious faith. Thus, all of science and technology makes faith less easy, less the default attitude.

Personally, I consider the question, "Is it true?" more important than "Does it harm or help Christianity?"

 

[The Lady Kate]

It is a problem. Church usually does not have time to teach details of creationism even if it is possible. For example, even I am willing to introduce some details about evolution in my church, first, there is no time, and second, there is a lack of interest. Even in my Sunday School class, when I got just a little bit deeper into the argument of evolution, people started to yawn, and I do not want to continue.

they're probably not up for a serious discussion... and you've already confessed to not necessarily being interested in honest discussion... so what did you expect?

Young people drifted away from faith when exposed to evolution. Well that is too bad. Hope they will come back in their later life. Those do not drift away are very blessed.

Did you think they wouldn't drift away from faith in your strawmen?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Good point.

First, we need to know that we could not understand everything. In fact, one can only know very little.

So, if something came up to teach a new "systematic knowledge", but we do not understand, what do you do? How do you check the new knowledge against something you do know?

So, you tell me, how should an average Christian, who does not understand evolution, evaluate what the evolution says?

Is there a prohibition against the average Christian learning about evolution?

 

[juvenissun]

Is there a prohibition against the average Christian learning about evolution?

(I am actually improving in responding to people)

 

[The Lady Kate]

(I am actually improving in responding to people)

Your question was: "How should an average Christian, who knows nothing about evolution, evaluate evolution?"

The blindingly obvious answer would be to learn about evolution... Since you didn't bring this up, I assume you eliminated it for some reason.

Why shouldn't a Christian learn about evolution before evaluating it?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Someone said earlier that the Bible in no way's says it to be read literally, though the same would be vice-versa. So, TE's read Creation as metaphor for the same reason Creationists read it as a truth?

I've never seen a TE insist that someone else wasn't a real Christian because they didn't read Genesis metaphorically... so clearly the reasons aren't the same.

 

[John 10:10]

Why shouldn't a Christian learn about evolution before evaluating it?

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

True science is the study and validation of what causes things to happen; i.e., showing cause and effect to a high degree of accuracy. Science can study and validate the scientific laws God has placed into the operation of the physical universe and the material things God has created. Science can study living things, what makes them tick, and how to make them get well when they get sick. Science can study how to take the things God has created and transform them into all manner of creative works. But science cannot show how life evolved from inanimate matter, and then somehow evolved into all manner of living things. To call this kind of evolution science, and then to teach this in our schools as science is nothing short of brainwashing. It has no relation whatsoever to the other kinds of scientific studies mentioned earlier.

The Bible clearly declares God created all living things, plant and animal, "after their own kind" in Gen 1; i.e., they did not evolve from one kind to another. Then God made man in His own image, and man became a living soul. No other creature was given this potential to know the true and living God, and fellowship with Him. Let's not neglect so great a salvation.

Blessings

 

[The Lady Kate]

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

True science is the study and validation of what causes things to happen; i.e., showing cause and effect to a high degree of accuracy. Science can study and validate the scientific laws God has placed into the operation of the physical universe and the material things God has created. Science can study living things, what makes them tick, and how to make them get well when they get sick. Science can study how to take the things God has created and transform them into all manner of creative works. But science cannot show how life evolved from inanimate matter, and then somehow evolved into all manner of living things. To call this kind of evolution science, and then to teach this in our schools as science is nothing short of brainwashing. It has no relation whatsoever to the other kinds of scientific studies mentioned earlier.

The Bible clearly declares God created all living things, plant and animal, "after their own kind" in Gen 1; i.e., they did not evolve from one kind to another. Then God made man in His own image, and man became a living soul. No other creature was given this potential to know the true and living God, and fellowship with Him. Let's not neglect so great a salvation.

Blessings

Evolution doesn't cover this.

 

[gluadys]

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

True science is the study and validation of what causes things to happen; i.e., showing cause and effect to a high degree of accuracy. Science can study and validate the scientific laws God has placed into the operation of the physical universe and the material things God has created. Science can study living things, what makes them tick, and how to make them get well when they get sick. Science can study how to take the things God has created and transform them into all manner of creative works.

Evolution is a theory that describes the causes and effects of changes in species over time and does so with a high degree of accuracy. It is a study and validation of the operation of variation and selection in populations. It studies what makes genes change and how to deal with genetic diseases. Scientists have transformed populations in creative ways using the information from the study of evolution.

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

Well, there is your problem. The theory of evolution says nothing at all about how life evolved from inanimate matter. The transition from inanimate to animate matter is simply not what one studies when one studies evolution. All the molecular transitions, changes in genes, adaptations and changes in species that are part of evolution happen in living species, not in inanimate matter.

So, it seems it is not wrong to call evolution "science". Your objection was based on a misunderstanding of what evolution is about.


Now there is another field of biology called abiogenesis in which scientists do study how inanimate matter may have been transformed into living matter by a natural process. But before you say it is not science, perhaps you should look at how they do that kind of study. It doesn't really matter if they never find a way for inanimate matter to become alive. If they are using observation and experimentation in line with scientific method, that is science. IOW it is not the result of the study that makes it science. It is how one gets to the result--even if it is a negative one.

The Bible clearly declares God created all living things, plant and animal, "after their own kind" in Gen 1; i.e., they did not evolve from one kind to another.

Who says that "after their own kind" means they did not evolve? And what does evolve "from one kind to another" mean? I think you have a concept of evolution that is very different from what evolution really is.

Then God made man in His own image, and man became a living soul. No other creature was given this potential to know the true and living God, and fellowship with Him. Let's not neglect so great a salvation.

Blessings

Amen. But that doesn't say anything about evolution one way or another. And that is another reason evolution should not be an issue for Christians. It is not as if our relationship to God and our fellowship with Christ is different because we evolved.

 

[John 10:10]

Regardless of how some define "the theory of evolution," it is a belief that somehow living matter first made the transition from inanimate matter into living matter by an unknown process, then began its ever upward progress from the simple to the complex to a first species and then evolved into the millions and millions of plant and animal species. Most evolutionists do not believe God was involved in any part of the evolutionary theory. Some Christians like to believe God was.

Some may not understand what the Bible means when it reveals that all living things were created "after their own kind," but it simply means that God created plants and animals fully formed so that they could reproduce after their own kind. Can plants and animals better adapt over time to their living conditions? Yes they can, but they still remain within their created species. The theory of evolution has never shown/proven in a laboratory how life does change from the spark of life to cells to the first living creature, and then from one species to another to another. This part of the ToE is not true science, and does not agree with the fossil records that show fully formed creatures first show up in the Cambrian period some 500+ million years ago. Since then, there have been at least 5 major extinction periods due to inhospitable life conditions of earth, followed again by fully formed creatures showing up shortly thereafter. The ToE nievely declares that a few species survived each extinction period, then rapidly evolved. This too is not true science.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Regardless of how some define "the theory of evolution," it is a belief that somehow living matter first made the transition from inanimate matter into living matter by an unknown process, then began its ever upward progress from the simple to the complex to a first species and then evolved into the millions and millions of plant and animal species. Most evolutionists do not believe God was involved in any part of the evolutionary theory. Some Christians like to believe God was.

So when presented with the actual definition and differentiation between the theory of evolution and abiogenesis you simply outright reject it. Interesting.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Ohh, bad contrast. TEs read the creation story metaphorically; creationists read it as science. Both science and metaphor can be truth. They are just different ways of presenting truth. So when TEs read the creation story metaphorically they are also reading it as a truth---just as much as creationists think they are.

Yeah, I kinda got that feeling. But this dosen't explain anything but just goes to show that both TE's and Creationists just chose a side and marked their territory.

So creationists think God prefers prose? Or do they simply prefer prose, and assume God shares their taste? What exactly is their argument here?

The questions go both ways...So..basically..it's all a matter of "you're wrong we're right, nuff said"
But to answer you directly. I don't know what Creationists think about God, I would like to generalize but I can't find a good one right now so... i'll pass. I believe, personally, that Creationist think God prefers whatever God says he prefers.

Of course it's opinion, although it is opinion that is backed by plenty of scholarship. Is not the belief that Genesis was intended to be a historical, scientific description also opinion?

So...you want me to admit that the "burden of the proof" is on us Creationists?
Otherwise...whose side is the BOTP on?

I suspect that every idea that explains some part of the world in natural terms, or that lets us manipulate the world better, is a threat at some level to religious faith. Thus, all of science and technology makes faith less easy, less the default attitude.

It's also a threat to the biblical Christianity as a whole, which says, "How can the natural man understand spiritual things?"

Personally, I consider the question, "Is it true?" more important than "Does it harm or help Christianity?"

That's the right attitude to have. So, feel free to answer the question you posed for yourself being, "Is it true?"

I've never seen a TE insist that someone else wasn't a real Christian because they didn't read Genesis metaphorically... so clearly the reasons aren't the same.

Care to emphaizes on what you mean, I'm not seeing it.

 

[lawtonfogle]

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

True science is the study and validation of what causes things to happen; i.e., showing cause and effect to a high degree of accuracy. Science can study and validate the scientific laws God has placed into the operation of the physical universe and the material things God has created. Science can study living things, what makes them tick, and how to make them get well when they get sick. Science can study how to take the things God has created and transform them into all manner of creative works. But science cannot show how life evolved from inanimate matter, and then somehow evolved into all manner of living things. To call this kind of evolution science, and then to teach this in our schools as science is nothing short of brainwashing. It has no relation whatsoever to the other kinds of scientific studies mentioned earlier.

The Bible clearly declares God created all living things, plant and animal, "after their own kind" in Gen 1; i.e., they did not evolve from one kind to another. Then God made man in His own image, and man became a living soul. No other creature was given this potential to know the true and living God, and fellowship with Him. Let's not neglect so great a salvation.

Blessings

Science can't show why matter has mass yet, there are a few guesses though. So physics using mass (basically all physics) is then not science?

Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Until you learn that, you are no different than a man who says physics isn't science because it works with mass which it can't yet explain.