How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?

[PT Calvinist]

I was just wondering how a Bible believing person becomes a Theistic Evolutionist...Is Theistic Evolution even Biblical? If so, where in Scripture does one derive it from?

 

[Mallon]

Why must one's acceptance of scientific theory be rooted in biblical exegesis? The Bible doesn't mention bacteria, atoms, or heliocentrism, yet I suspect most of us here accept these things.

 

[Assyrian]

How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?

I can send you a membership form and certificate for €99 plus p&p.

I was just wondering how a Bible believing person becomes a Theistic Evolutionist...Is Theistic Evolution even Biblical? If so, where in Scripture does one derive it from?

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. Life evolved on earth over billions of years, ''all things'' includes evolution too, created by, through, and for Jesus Christ.

 

[PT Calvinist]

I can send you a membership form and certificate for €99 plus p&p.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. Life evolved on earth over billions of years, ''all things'' includes evolution too, created by, through, and for Jesus Christ.

I suppose that's a bit of a weak defense in my position, but then, I'm not here to debate on it, rather to see why people are Theistic Evolutionists and if they have a Biblical stand-point, which they obviously do.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Why must one's acceptance of scientific theory be rooted in biblical exegesis? The Bible doesn't mention bacteria, atoms, or heliocentrism, yet I suspect most of us here accept these things.

I'm not here to argue, just to find out why one is a Theistic evolutionist.

 

[Mallon]

I'm not here to argue, just to find out why one is a Theistic evolutionist.

Same reason I'm a theistic gravitationalist, theistic atomist, theistic germist, theistic heliocentrist, and theistic epigeneticist.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Same reason I'm a theistic gravitationalist, theistic atomist, theistic germist, theistic heliocentrist, and theistic epigeneticist.

So basically, because it has been scientifically verified?

 

[Mallon]

So basically, because it has been scientifically verified?

Yep.

 

[pgp_protector]

I'm not here to argue, just to find out why one is a Theistic evolutionist.

Because the evidence doesn't support a 6K year old universe & earth.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

LOL, People do not know that we all have the "same" evidence. It is just how we presuppositions are different according to our worldviews.

Let me ask one question. How did the "first" single-celled organism survive?

 

[Mallon]

LOL, People do not know that we all have the "same" evidence. It is just how we presuppositions are different according to our worldviews.

Sure. But the evolutionary theory does a better job of explaining the evidence than any other theory out there. Neocreationism doesn't explain why, say, humans and other apes share the same endogenous retroviruses, or why all animals with fur also have backbones. Evolution explains these patterns.

I think one could even make the case that we do not all have the "same evidence" because YEC organizations like AiC admit to rejecting evidence that does not align with their preconvictions. Check it out, it's in their statement of faith:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

Let me ask one question. How did the "first" single-celled organism survive?

Not sure I get the gist of your question. How does anything survive?

 

[MrJDSmith]

"Let me ask one question. How did the "first" single-celled organism survive?"
I think it died a long time ago.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Sure. But the evolutionary theory does a better job of explaining the evidence than any other theory out there. Neocreationism doesn't explain why, say, humans and other apes share the same endogenous retroviruses, or why all animals with fur also have backbones. Evolution explains these patterns.

I think one could even make the case that we do not all have the "same evidence" because YEC organizations like AiC admit to rejecting evidence that does not align with their preconvictions. Check it out, it's in their statement of faith:
The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis

Not sure I get the gist of your question. How does anything survive?

As for AiG, that is because to them, like you believe that your worldview is "correct." In which AiG is right, and you are wrong.

lol, You do not know? lol. How do you know that there "was" a first single organism?

 

[PT Calvinist]

Because the evidence doesn't support a 6K year old universe & earth.

Ah...This same logic is why most Atheists are Atheists...

 

[metherion]

LOL, People do not know that we all have the "same" evidence. It is just how we presuppositions are different according to our worldviews.

Nope. Incorrect.
Number one: People, especially scientists, have a track record of accepting ideas, scientific theories, etc against their worldview. Cases in point: germ theories vs. humors, the falsification of phlogiston, etc.
Number two: Many of the first geologists to find evidence for an old earth were Christians.
Number three: Most of the YEC 'science' groups have statements about how they will never ever ever budge on anything no matter what the evidence and if any evidence goes against their presuppositions it must be WRONG. Science has no such statement. If you can provide actual evidence to falsify something, go right ahead.
Number four: Not all ideas are created scientifically equal. Only those that explain all the evidence correctly, coherently, and consistently are kept. All the others are eviscerated for their flaws and left by the side of the road, to either die or be patched up into something that will survive. YEC does not do any of those.
Number 5: Scientists, nonscientists, atheists, christians, nonchristians, people from all different cultures, nationalities, etc accept evolution. What common presuppositions do they have?

Let me ask one question. How did the "first" single-celled organism survive?

What in particular makes you think it wouldn't? If it were the first, there would be no predators to eat it, no prey to injure it in self defense, access to whatever energy started the chemical reactions that led to it forming... why wouldn't it survive?

Metherion

 

[metherion]

As for AiG, that is because to them, like you believe that your worldview is "correct." In which AiG is right, and you are wrong.

If they are correct, they should not have to reject ANY evidence.

Ah...This same logic is why most Atheists are Atheists...

Nope.

Most of the reasons atheists are atheists range from "I don't see any evidence for a god" to "God didn't answer me in my time of need therefore He isn't real" to "I wasn't brought up to believe in a god".

I would be willing to bet that most atheists that are atheists because the evidence points to an older than 6K year Earth are those who were brought up thinking that if the Earth isn't 6K years old then God LIED, IS WRONG, AND/OR DOESN"T EXIST.

UNLESS
You are referring to the "There is not evidence for X therefore i do not believe X", which is still different. God, being unfalsifiable, by definition cannot have evidence against His existence. A good many atheists that i have met lack positive evidence for God, and therefore do not believe.
But.
There is a difference. The difference is: there may be a lack of objective evidence FOR God. But there is the same lack against Him. On the other hand, there IS evidence ACTIVELY AGAINST a young earth.



Metherion

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Nope. Incorrect.
Number one: People, especially scientists, have a track record of accepting ideas, scientific theories, etc against their worldview. Cases in point: germ theories vs. humors, the falsification of phlogiston, etc.
Number two: Many of the first geologists to find evidence for an old earth were Christians.
Number three: Most of the YEC 'science' groups have statements about how they will never ever ever budge on anything no matter what the evidence and if any evidence goes against their presuppositions it must be WRONG. Science has no such statement. If you can provide actual evidence to falsify something, go right ahead.
Number four: Not all ideas are created scientifically equal. Only those that explain all the evidence correctly, coherently, and consistently are kept. All the others are eviscerated for their flaws and left by the side of the road, to either die or be patched up into something that will survive. YEC does not do any of those.
Number 5: Scientists, nonscientists, atheists, christians, nonchristians, people from all different cultures, nationalities, etc accept evolution. What common presuppositions do they have?



What in particular makes you think it wouldn't? If it were the first, there would be no predators to eat it, no prey to injure it in self defense, access to whatever energy started the chemical reactions that led to it forming... why wouldn't it survive?

Metherion

Number 6 - Evolution does the same exact thing. If it comes from a Creationist site, it must be wrong. Creation looks at an evolutionist site, it must be wrong.

Number 7 - Proof for all of these "assumptions?"

That is my point, how could it survive? It cannot survive without food, but all food came from this organism so there cannot be any kind of food for it to eat. What were the inside and outside components of this organism? How and When was this organism able to reproduce and what reproductive system did it have? What was the first specimen to me accidentally produced? Did it need air? If so, How did it get there? What did this organism even "look" like? What was the "blind force" acting upon it and why does it have to be blind?

 

[Willtor]

Ah...This same logic is why most Atheists are Atheists...

There is a distinction. As Metherion pointed out, there is no evidence against God -- except ostensibly for philosophical arguments. There _is_ a multitude of evidence for, say, the Earth being more than 6000 years old. E.g., tree rings push the date back more than 10,000 years.

 

[metherion]

Number 6 - Evolution does the same exact thing. If it comes from a Creationist site, it must be wrong. Creation looks at an evolutionist site, it must be wrong.


Nope.
If it comes from a creation site and challenges evolution, there will be a scientific reason it fails. Let’s take a common example: The Mississippi delta. It accumulates silt at a rate of X tons/minute. It has a total mass of Y. Therefore it must be less than 4.5 billion years old, so the earth is young.

Rebuttal: The earth can be older than one feature of the earth. If the Mississippi delta is less than Y years old, all that shows is that the Mississippi delta is less than Y years old. Not the entire earth.

If it comes from an evolution site and challenges creationism, it is wrong solely because of a fallible interpretation of scripture, and any ‘science’ showing it is wrong suffers is rebutted on a similar site to the above.

Number 7 - Proof for all of these "assumptions?"

Number 1: People don’t still use phlogiston theory unless I’m vastly mistaken. Therefore, scientific theories have changed regardless of the individual scientists’ idea. Therefore they CAN change regardless of...

Number two.
William Thomson was an Anglican. He also settled on an age of the earth of millions of years BEFORE 1900. There are others.

Number three. You’ve acknowledged AiG’s policy, why do I need to prove anything?

Number four. if YEC DID explain all the evidence, it would be a scientific theory. It did not and could not. Therefore it isn’t.

Number 5. Okay, myself and Richard Dawkins. Both humans, one Roman Catholic the other atheist, one American the other English, both accept evolution. There you have it. Different culture, different nationality, different religion, both accepting evolution. What common presuppositions make us both reject YEC?

If there is one, it is that we accept that evidence leads us to an explanation, not ‘our explanation is right and reality is wrong’. And if what i just put in quotes IS the presupposition of YEC, as AiG suggests it is, then YEC are NOT looking at all the evidence, they are disregarding it, so your statement ‘both sides look at the evidence with different presuppositions’ is wrong because evidence is NOT looked at.

Number six? Just gave an example.

It cannot survive without food, but all food came from this organism so there cannot be any kind of food for it to eat.

And plants don’t eat other life forms so they must not be able to survive either. Oh wait. Plant food is minerals and water found it dirt. Well, there were minerals and water... so... ta da!

What were the inside and outside components of this organism?

We don’t have to know exactly what it was made up of. Why should we have to be able to describe it molecule by molecule for it to have existed? We don’t.

How and When was this organism able to reproduce and what reproductive system did it have?

An asexual one, common to most single-celled organisms do today.

What was the first specimen to me accidentally produced?

This sentence makes no sense. Sorry.

Did it need air? If so, How did it get there?

Single life is self-replicating chemicals, wherever the first organism arose there must have been those chemicals. Therefore, anything it needed to reproduce and sustain itself would be there.

What did this organism even "look" like?

What does this matter to its existence? Describe to me the soldier ranked 297th out of the 300 spartans at Thermopylae. Can’t? Guess he never existed then.

What was the "blind force" acting upon it and why does it have to be blind?

Same ones that act on you and me: thermodynamics, chemistry, physics, etc. And they are called ‘blind’ because they are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. They are not anthropomorphable into things with goals, there are none!

Metherion

 

[Mallon]

As for AiG, that is because to them, like you believe that your worldview is "correct." In which AiG is right, and you are wrong.

It strikes me that a "right" theory (evolution is not a worldview) should be able to explain ALL the evidence without having to reject any of it. If you have to deny reality in order for your theory to work, can it really be right? I'm surprised that you would defend AiG's self-professed rejection of reality.

lol, You do not know? lol. How do you know that there "was" a first single organism?

Why do you have to start and end every sentence with "lol"? It's very belittling and disrespectful.