How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?

[The Lady Kate]

You know, but you do not ask why. That is the blindness I am talking about.

You don't seem to be asking either... blind leading the blind?

 

[juvenissun]

You know, I have often wondered about this too. And I wonder if the people who say it think about the theological implications.

You see, We all come from God originally. And we all know the YEC believe this. So do all Christians. Made in God's own image and all that. But when they say we who do not believe in YEC share different origins, it is pretty much the same as saying that us TEs DID NOT come from God. After all, what other meaning can you ascribe to it?

"Me, I came from a special act of Creation by God. You, you don't share my origins, you came from somewhere else." I mean, really. I guess we're not really human then, are we? After all, God created humanity (the only real difference is how we believe He did it), and telling us we came from somewhere else is pretty much telling us we're sub-human.


Personally... I wonder what Christ thinks, knowing people who believe in Him say that about fellow believers.

Metherion

I am not saying TE does not believe in God.

I am saying TE deliberately separates God's creation from the origin of human. Doesn't TE say that we "evolved" from ape? If we were evolved into existence, then we are not created. This fatal mistake forces TE to interpret many critical verses in the Bible metaphorically.

Why did this happen? Because the majority of TE, as lay people in paleontology, are bullied by the so-called "overwhelming evidence" of fossil collections. As a person who can make some arguments against these so-called "evidences", I can make witness to you that when one gave me one example of such evidence, I can ask at least one question, which the evidence would fail to explain, No matter how good the person is in paleontology. So, think about it, paleontology may give 10,000 evidences. But there are also 10,000 questions that can not be answered. Is this kind of evidence convincible?

It is impossible to believe in God and at the same time believe in evolution as the origin of human.

 

[Mallon]

I am saying TE deliberately separates God's creation from the origin of human. Doesn't TE say that we "evolved" from ape? If we were evolved into existence, then we are not created. This fatal mistake forces TE to interpret many critical verses in the Bible metaphorically.

Why does being evolved equate to not being created? That's a pretty simplistic view to hold.
The Bible describes each individual human as being a creation of God, yet there is no point during the developmental process in which God miraculously intervenes to attach an ear or a nose. Development, like evolution, is an entirely natural process. Do you therefore doubt that you are a created individual as well?

I am not saying TE does not believe in God.

It is impossible to believe in God and at the same time believe in evolution as the origin of human.

You totally contradicted yourself here.

 

[sfs]

I am not saying TE does not believe in God.

You're just saying that it's impossible to accept evolution and believe in God. Right.

I am saying TE deliberately separates God's creation from the origin of human. Doesn't TE say that we "evolved" from ape?

Yes.

If we were evolved into existence, then we are not created.

No. Being a TE means precisely accepting that we are both evolved and created. You may not believe it, but you haven't offered any reason to reject it as impossible. Simply asserting that the two are incompatible doesn't do it.

Why did this happen? Because the majority of TE, as lay people in paleontology, are bullied by the so-called "overwhelming evidence" of fossil collections.

The evidence from genetics is much stronger than the evidence from paleontology (which is not inconsiderable itself).

 

[The Lady Kate]

I am not saying TE does not believe in God.

I am saying TE deliberately separates God's creation from the origin of human.

Doesn't a literal reading of Genesis do this? Separate humanity from the rest of God's creation?

Doesn't TE say that we "evolved" from ape? If we were evolved into existence, then we are not created. This fatal mistake forces TE to interpret many critical verses in the Bible metaphorically.

Interpreting metaphor as metaphor is rarely a bad thing.

Why did this happen? Because the majority of TE, as lay people in paleontology, are bullied by the so-called "overwhelming evidence" of fossil collections. As a person who can make some arguments against these so-called "evidences", I can make witness to you that when one gave me one example of such evidence, I can ask at least one question, which the evidence would fail to explain, No matter how good the person is in paleontology.

In which case, the answer is, "We don't know the answer to that yet, but we're still working on it."

How is that a bad thing? It would be arrogant hubris for anyone on this side of the Jordan to think we have all the answers to everything...

So, think about it, paleontology may give 10,000 evidences. But there are also 10,000 questions that can not be answered. Is this kind of evidence convincible?

Which means 10,000 questions still being worked on. How is that a bad thing?

It is impossible to believe in God and at the same time believe in evolution as the origin of human.

And yet, your declarations aside, millions of us still do. How can you make such a statement in the faces of those whose very existence proves you wrong?

 

[metherion]

I am not saying TE does not believe in God.

I’m not saying you said that. I’m saying you said we do not originate from God. I get that from your claim that we don’t have the same origins.

I am saying TE deliberately separates God's creation from the origin of human. Doesn't TE say that we "evolved" from ape? If we were evolved into existence, then we are not created. This fatal mistake forces TE to interpret many critical verses in the Bible metaphorically.

TE does say humans evolved form ape-like ancestors. But, unless you impose fallible human ideas that are not contained in the creation stories, one does not have to be made to be physically identical to God to be made in God’s image. Furthermore, isn’t this coming from the viewpoint that plants aren’t alive because there ‘could not have been death in the garden’ but Adam and Eve and the animals had to kill, eat, and digest plant cells?

Internal inconsistency ftw. Anything can be added even if it makes no sense or is straight up wrong as long as it isn’t metaphorical.

Furthermore, what verses and why is interpreting them in a literal fashion so 100% critical that one can’t believe in God unless one does so BUT THAT IS MENTIONED NOWHERE IN THE REST OF THE BIBLE?!

Why did this happen? Because the majority of TE, as lay people in paleontology, are bullied by the so-called "overwhelming evidence" of fossil collections. As a person who can make some arguments against these so-called "evidences", I can make witness to you that when one gave me one example of such evidence, I can ask at least one question, which the evidence would fail to explain, No matter how good the person is in paleontology. So, think about it, paleontology may give 10,000 evidences. But there are also 10,000 questions that can not be answered. Is this kind of evidence convincible?

Are the paleontological questions? Or are the religious questions, unsupported by the rest of the holy book you claim to believe? Or perhaps exercises in loki’s wager? Did you try looking in other fields of science? Paleontology isn’t everything.


It is impossible to believe in God and at the same time believe in evolution as the origin of human.

And you contradict your first statement, for reasons pointed out by previous posters.

Metherion

 

[juvenissun]

You're just saying that it's impossible to accept evolution and believe in God. Right.

Yes.


No. Being a TE means precisely accepting that we are both evolved and created. You may not believe it, but you haven't offered any reason to reject it as impossible. Simply asserting that the two are incompatible doesn't do it.

The evidence from genetics is much stronger than the evidence from paleontology (which is not inconsiderable itself).

Oh, that is new (to me). Thanks. But if you accepted creation as part of the human origin, then why not expand it to become the only origin? I will make more sense than to accept two different mechanism.

Yes, genetics is the only hope to give good evidence of evolution. But, I just feel that geneticists would never find it.

As a good Christian, why don't you devote more time to investigate the genetic relationship between human and apes, instead of putting all of your time to study the human genetics only.

 

[juvenissun]

Why does being evolved equate to not being created? That's a pretty simplistic view to hold.
The Bible describes each individual human as being a creation of God, yet there is no point during the developmental process in which God miraculously intervenes to attach an ear or a nose. Development, like evolution, is an entirely natural process. Do you therefore doubt that you are a created individual as well?

But God does attach (abruptly and obviously) far superior intelligence to human. It is far far more dramatic than to attach a ear or a nose. Of course, the ear and nose are the only things a paleontologist can see.

I am not saying TE does not believe in God.
It is impossible to believe in God and at the same time believe in evolution as the origin of human.

You totally contradicted yourself here.

That is from your point of view. From my point of view, it is you, who are contracting to yourself.

 

[juvenissun]

Doesn't a literal reading of Genesis do this? Separate humanity from the rest of God's creation?



Interpreting metaphor as metaphor is rarely a bad thing.



In which case, the answer is, "We don't know the answer to that yet, but we're still working on it."

How is that a bad thing? It would be arrogant hubris for anyone on this side of the Jordan to think we have all the answers to everything...



Which means 10,000 questions still being worked on. How is that a bad thing?



And yet, your declarations aside, millions of us still do. How can you make such a statement in the faces of those whose very existence proves you wrong?

Like I have said, you see me wrong, I see you wrong too.

Then let's see: I have one model: creation. But you have two models that both MUST coexist: creation and evolution.

You tell me who has more chance to be wrong?
When both models are not proven, you tell me who has a heavier burden to prove anything?

 

[sfs]

Oh, that is new (to me). Thanks. But if you accepted creation as part of the human origin, then why not expand it to become the only origin? I will make more sense than to accept two different mechanism.

Because creation isn't a mechanism. Creation is an ascription of agency to God. By itself, saying that God created humans says nothing about whether the mechanism was evolution or not. Similarly, saying that God created me says nothing about whether he used the normal, physical processes of sexual reproduction and development or not.

Yes, genetics is the only hope to give good evidence of evolution. But, I just feel that geneticists would never find it.

Genetics has already found loads of very good evidence for common descent. No hope is required.

As a good Christian, why don't you devote more time to investigate the genetic relationship between human and apes, instead of putting all of your time to study the human genetics only.

I have no idea why being a Christian should make me more interested in studying human origins, rather than some other branch of genetics. As I said before, the fact of an evolutionary origin for humans has nothing to do with God's role as creator. In any case, our relationship to the apes has already been well established, and doesn't need my input (although I was an author on the chimpanzee genome paper).

I actually only spend 3/4s of my time on human genetics, with the rest going to malaria genetics. In both cases, the ultimate aim for much of my work is medical application, which strikes me as a useful way to spend my time.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Oh, that is new (to me). Thanks. But if you accepted creation as part of the human origin, then why not expand it to become the only origin? I will make more sense than to accept two different mechanism.

Ignoring what we see all around us for no good reason rarely makes sense.

Yes, genetics is the only hope to give good evidence of evolution. But, I just feel that geneticists would never find it.

Much like your "Evolutionists cannot believe in God" doozie, you've stated something can't happen after it's already been done. Is this a habit for you?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Like I have said, you see me wrong, I see you wrong too.

I believe in God.
I find evolutionary biology to be the most sound theory to explain the diversity of life on this planet.

You said it was impossible for one person to hold both beliefs.

Now, how am I wrong?

Then let's see: I have one model: creation. But you have two models that both MUST coexist: creation and evolution.

So where's the problem? Your model is based on a literal reading of the Bible. Mine is not.

You tell me who has more chance to be wrong?

We're not talking "chance to be wrong"... you said I was wrong. Care to explain that without backpedaling?

When both models are not proven, you tell me who has a heavier burden to prove anything?

Again, you've already made the statement that I was wrong... I'm calling your bluff, now show your cards.

 

[LightSeaker]

Ignoring what we see all around us for no good reason rarely makes sense.

This is a really important point. Thank you for point it out. God's own creation is showing us through the window of evolution and geology some really good stuff in how God creates. It makes no sense to me to ignore what God's own Creation is showing us. For me, it's such a blessing to be able to see our Creating God in the process of Creating and to actually be aware of it while it's happening.

.

 

[LightSeaker]

It is impossible to believe in God and at the same time believe in evolution as the origin of human.

No it isn't. But I suspect it depends upon where one sees God WITH IN His own Creation.

.

 

[Assyrian]

But if you accepted creation as part of the human origin, then why not expand it to become the only origin? I will make more sense than to accept two different mechanism.

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. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
How can you expand 'all things'? You are confusing the truth the God has created everything with the question of how it was created.

Do you believe God created you? Why not expand that to become your only origin, wouldn't it make more sense than to accept two different mechanisms? Forget the wild stories your biology teacher told you about your mother and father and the tiny little sperm and an egg, your teacher wasn't there, with a microscope. God created you, why would you need two different mechanisms?

 

[juvenissun]

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. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
How can you expand 'all things'? You are confusing the truth the God has created everything with the question of how it was created.

Do you believe God created you? Why not expand that to become your only origin, wouldn't it make more sense than to accept two different mechanisms? Forget the wild stories your biology teacher told you about your mother and father and the tiny little sperm and an egg, your teacher wasn't there, with a microscope. God created you, why would you need two different mechanisms?

OK. According to what you said, I am holding two mechanisms to my origin: God's creation (not proven) and biological birth (proven). But, if plus evolution (not proven), there would be THREE mechanisms. You still have one more big burden to deal with.

The verse 16 you quoted, how would that help on your believe in evolution?

 

[juvenissun]

I believe in God.
I find evolutionary biology to be the most sound theory to explain the diversity of life on this planet.

You said it was impossible for one person to hold both beliefs.

Now, how am I wrong?



So where's the problem? Your model is based on a literal reading of the Bible. Mine is not.



We're not talking "chance to be wrong"... you said I was wrong. Care to explain that without backpedaling?



Again, you've already made the statement that I was wrong... I'm calling your bluff, now show your cards.

You believe in evolution, you also believe in God. This is a fact.

What's wrong is that you deliberately blind yourself and do not want see the conflict between the two.

You need faith to make God real. It is hard enough. You do not need to struggle to have another faith in evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

Because creation isn't a mechanism. Creation is an ascription of agency to God. By itself, saying that God created humans says nothing about whether the mechanism was evolution or not. Similarly, saying that God created me says nothing about whether he used the normal, physical processes of sexual reproduction and development or not.


Genetics has already found loads of very good evidence for common descent. No hope is required.

I have no idea why being a Christian should make me more interested in studying human origins, rather than some other branch of genetics. As I said before, the fact of an evolutionary origin for humans has nothing to do with God's role as creator. In any case, our relationship to the apes has already been well established, and doesn't need my input (although I was an author on the chimpanzee genome paper).

I actually only spend 3/4s of my time on human genetics, with the rest going to malaria genetics. In both cases, the ultimate aim for much of my work is medical application, which strikes me as a useful way to spend my time.

Please show me an article as a good example. I have access to e-journal database. Thanks.

 

[Assyrian]

OK. According to what you said, I am holding two mechanisms to my origin: God's creation (not proven) and biological birth (proven). But, if plus evolution (not proven), there would be THREE mechanisms. You still have one more big burden to deal with.

I didn't mention your biological birth, you were already full formed at that stage anyway, it is you conception and the processes claimed to be involved in your development that are not 'proven'. The bible tells you God created you, that God is the potter and we are the clay, just like Adam, it tells you God wove you together in the depths of the earth. We just have two type of 'mechanism' here. God's creation and biology. You could wave your Creationist denial over conception and embryonic development of the fetus just as easily as you do over evolution. Science claims it is genes that govern how the different organs in the embryo develop, but as we have seen here already, we do not know the genes responsible for brain development and intelligence. That has to mean it can't happen doesn't it? I am you could start a whole campaign against 'atheistic embryology' if you only realised that all the passages in the bible talking of God creating us must be taken literally too.

You haven't said why it is alright to hold onto God and embryology, but not God and evolution, just that you seem to accept embryology as 'proven' why you say evolution is not. In fact both are well established science. You seem to have a view of science that is gradually kicking God out of the equation as more and more areas are 'proven'. So two hundred years ago you could have insisted on only accepting one mechanism for God making both all the different animals species and making you, now God is forced out of your creation into a secondary role. It is bad theology Juv.

The verse 16 you quoted, how would that help on your believe in evolution?

It doesn't. Scientific evidence tells me evolution is real, the same as it tells me cells, embryological development, genetics, chemistry, atoms, electrons and electro magnetic magnetic fields are real. What verse Col 1:16 tells me is that God created them all.

 

[The Lady Kate]

You believe in evolution, you also believe in God. This is a fact.

What's wrong is that you deliberately blind yourself and do not want see the conflict between the two.

You claim there is a conflict where there is none. That makes you wrong.

You need faith to make God real. It is hard enough.

Actually, Juvenissun, God is real whether or not I have faith in Him... Perhaps you have a difficult task of "making" God real through faith, but I find it unnecessary... faith is quite simple.

So you are wrong again.

You do not need to struggle to have another faith in evolution.

Indeed, it takes very little effort to accept what the evidence plainly shows.