How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?

[Mallon]

I wouldn't be apt to take a science lesson from someone who doesn't do science themselves.

 

[gluadys]

What I'm saying is that science "CANNOT" determine to a high degree of accuracy, as it can with the studies of many inanimate materials, if God worked thru life evolving from the first created life form to the various species we can study in the fossil records, or if God created fully formed plant and animal species every step of the way.

Well, science can't say anything about whether God worked through life evolving. But for that matter science can't say anything about God working through inanimate material either.

OTOH, science can say a lot about biological evolution, just as it can about chemical reactions and particle physics.


btw, just what does the phrase "fully-formed" mean? I often wonder where anti-evolutionists get the idea that evolution would not produce fully-formed species.

We can only study animate life as it exists today, and determine to a high degree of accuracy how plant, animal, and human life works today.

That is more than enough to verify that species evolve and that they evolve in the way that the theory of evolution sets out.

Science cannot determine to a high degree of accuracy how animate life came to be or if it evolved by studying the fossil records.

The theory of evolution does not touch on how life came to be--only on how species evolved over time. And there is much more than fossil evidence to confirm that evolution has always been a characteristic of living species. The new studies in genomics are proving very instructive for the reconstruction of the history of evolution.

Nevertheless, we can also say of the fossil record that:

1. It does not contradict the theory of evolution at any point.
2. It fits the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution.
3. It has provided evidence that the theory of evolution predicted prior to that evidence being found (e.g. transitional forms such as Tiktaalik).
4. It matches evidence for TofE in many other fields such as geographic distribution, comparative anatomy, embryological development and genetic relationships.

Also, the fossil record is an example of inanimate material in the present, which by your own criteria, is something science can study with a high degree of accuracy.

Do creatures change over time? They certainly do! Just look at how humans have changed since Noah's family. But we are all still humans with a soul and spirit. I don't see any evidence that humans are somehow evolving into a new species, except the "new creation man" created in the Lord Jesus Christ.

You wouldn't within a single life-time. Not for a relatively long-lived species like us. A possible scenario in which we might get new human species is if some of the worst case scenarios on climate change come to pass, leaving small populations of humans in the polar regions and in a few refugia. If such populations remained isolated for many generations, they could become separate species.

I suspect that part of your misconception of evolution lies in the phrase "evolving into a new species" which suggests a linear and irresistable movement of change that involves the whole species. Most new species, however, occur as branchings of an isolated population from the main population, giving the characteristic "bush" configuration of the phylogenetic tree. It is not so much that a species becomes a different species as that a species splits into daughter species.

 

[gluadys]

So you know for a certainty that God's created life that shown up in the fossil records evolved through various stages,

Since the fossil record shows the stages, why would one not know it?

that God did not create fully formed species every step of the way,

On the contrary, all the species were fully formed. Unless you are using "fully-formed" to mean something very different -- you will have to explain to me just what the phrase means to you. But I don't know of any reason why any species would not be both a result of evolution and fully-formed.

I mean, are humans fully formed? Yes!
Did humans evolve? Yes! Are they still evolving? Yes!

So what's with presenting these as mutually exclusive?

and that science has proven this to you to a high degree of accuracy!!!

Very much so. That is why it has convinced so many scientists.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I may not be able to see UV light with my naked eye, but that doesn't mean I reject the existence of UV light. Similarly, science may not be able to detect the influence of the supernatural, but it doesn't deny the existence of the supernatural.

It denies the existence as an explanation. If Bobblelight is some undetectable form of negative energy, science does not say it doesn't exist, but it does say that it can not the explanation for any thing. In other words, science does not say 'God does not exist' (which would require God to be testable to say), it says 'God cannot be an explanation', which is the same as saying 'all our explanations with be from the standpoint of no God'.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Yes, reject as an explanation. That is not the same as rejecting the supernatural per se. It is just to say that science does not/cannot consider supernatural claims.

See my other reply.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Anything science deals with has to be from the perspective of 'God did not do it'.

See, you both agreed with my original statement (above). Science, when it explains things (which is what I mean by 'deals with'), works from the position of no supernatural explanation. God, being supernatural, is included in the group which is excluded as possible explanations.

 

[Mallon]

It denies the existence as an explanation. If Bobblelight is some undetectable form of negative energy, science does not say it doesn't exist, but it does say that it can not the explanation for any thing. In other words, science does not say 'God does not exist' (which would require God to be testable to say), it says 'God cannot be an explanation', which is the same as saying 'all our explanations with be from the standpoint of no God'.

Your problem here is that you're conflating agency and mechanism. Science works from the standpoint of there being no miracles (mechanism) rather than no God (agency). Christians are perfectly happy to accept that God works through both natural and miraculous means, therefore excluding the latter from science does not do away with God.

 

[John 10:10]

It seems that I am the only Christian at this forum that believes God "instantly created" fully-formed "after their own kind" plant and animal species that show up in the fossil records, that God did this by the power of His word at the appropriate time, that God reveals this manner of creation in His Word, and that science cannot prove otherwise that this is not the manner in which God created all life on earth that has existed since God first began to place life on earth.

It seems all other Christians at this forum believe that God worked thru evolution as He created plant and animal life species, that "science proves" this to a high degree of accuracy that God created all life in this manner, and that humans eventually evolved from primates.

Now I finally get it!!! Thanks for the so-called science lesson. When we stand before our Creator in the resurrection, there will be no question as to God's how.

Blessings

 

[Mallon]

It seems that I am the only Christian at this forum that believes God "instantly created" fully-formed "after their own kind" plant and animal species that show up in the fossil records, that God did this by the power of His word at the appropriate time, that God reveals this manner of creation in His Word, and that science cannot prove otherwise that this is not the manner in which God created all life on earth that has existed since God first began to place life on earth.

How do you think science could falsify this idea? What predictions does this scenario make that we could test empirically?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Your problem here is that you're conflating agency and mechanism. Science works from the standpoint of there being no miracles (mechanism) rather than no God (agency). Christians are perfectly happy to accept that God works through both natural and miraculous means, therefore excluding the latter from science does not do away with God.

No, you are confusing rejecting agency and mechanism as an explanation with saying that agency does not exist. God working though natural means, is to science, supernatural, as the being of God is supernatural. In other words, saying "God guided evolution" is not scientific, as that is a supernatural explanation.

Science rejects all supernatural mechanism, and thus by default, rejects all supernatural agencies.

 

[Mallon]

No, you are confusing rejecting agency and mechanism as an explanation with saying that agency does not exist. God working though natural means, is to science, supernatural, as the being of God is supernatural. In other words, saying "God guided evolution" is not scientific, as that is a supernatural explanation.

Science rejects all supernatural mechanism, and thus by default, rejects all supernatural agencies.

I have a feeling we largely agree and are simply arguing semantics at this point.

I agree that "God guided evolution" is not scientific. But the corollary that "God didn't guide evolution" is also not scientific. Whether or not God exists cannot be examined by science, and therefore any statement about the in/existence of God is a metaphysical statement. Science simply tells us how things happen, not whether anyone is behind those things or whether any meaning should be attached to them.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I have a feeling we largely agree and are simply arguing semantics at this point.

I had that feeling since your second post, but I wasn't entirely sure.

I agree that "God guided evolution" is not scientific. But the corollary that "God didn't guide evolution" is also not scientific.

Science goes "We will assume God (or Buddha, or Visha, or Shiva, or Chutullu, ect.) did not guide evolution." Why? Because any of them guiding evolution is supernatural, and science starts off by assuming no supernatural. The fact I can be a theistic evolutionist is because I go "Nice assumption, and it is required for empherical truths, but I myself am not making such an assumption". Do most other TE's do that or not, I haven't a clue.

Whether or not God exists cannot be examined by science, and therefore any statement about the in/existence of God is a metaphysical statement. Science simply tells us how things happen, not whether anyone is behind those things or whether any meaning should be attached to them.

If we are having a semantical disagreement, I would dare say it is in the 'is behind' part.

 

[metherion]

Science goes "We will assume God (or Buddha, or Visha, or Shiva, or Chutullu, ect.) did not guide evolution." Why? Because any of them guiding evolution is supernatural, and science starts off by assuming no supernatural. The fact I can be a theistic evolutionist is because I go "Nice assumption, and it is required for empherical truths, but I myself am not making such an assumption". Do most other TE's do that or not, I haven't a clue.

Except it doesn't say that. Evolution goes... 'hrm, let's figure out the mechanisms behind how evolution works.' It doesn't say "we're going to assume some intelligent agency is not guiding the mechanisms", just as it doesn't say "we're going to assume some intelligent agency IS guiding the mechanisms." It says nothing either way. A lack of a position is not a negative position.

All it says is "here are the mechanisms that make it work and why they work in making it work, and the evidence that supports it."

Why is the utter lack of a position so hard for people to wrap their head around?

Metherion

 

[sfs]

Science goes "We will assume God (or Buddha, or Visha, or Shiva, or Chutullu, ect.) did not guide evolution." Why? Because any of them guiding evolution is supernatural, and science starts off by assuming no supernatural.

I disagree. Science doesn't even have the concepts of natural and supernatural. All science knows about are patterns in physical phenomena, patterns which it attempts to explain by building models. To the extent that "supernatural" means anything, it refers to an event that does not follow the normal patterns that science observes. Theistic evolution, on the other hand, is often not about failure of biology to follow natural patterns; rather, it is an assertion that there is a personal agent behind the patterns. Thus, science does not rejection the assertion of theism; it just has nothing at all to say about it.

Now there are also theistic evolutionists who do think that God has intervened in supernatural ways in the course of evolution, and they are adopting a non-scientific stance. Theistic evolution by itself, however, does not require that stance.

 

[The Lady Kate]

It seems that I am the only Christian at this forum that believes God "instantly created" fully-formed "after their own kind" plant and animal species that show up in the fossil records, that God did this by the power of His word at the appropriate time, that God reveals this manner of creation in His Word, and that science cannot prove otherwise that this is not the manner in which God created all life on earth that has existed since God first began to place life on earth.

Big surprise... in a thread calling out to Theistic Evolutionists, you're the only non-Theistic Evolutionist who answers.

Nope... never saw that one coming.

It seems all other Christians at this forum believe that God worked thru evolution as He created plant and animal life species, that "science proves" this to a high degree of accuracy that God created all life in this manner, and that humans eventually evolved from primates.

It's called "Theistic Evolution." perhaps you should look at the title of the thread?

Your response is similar to someone travelling to Mexico City and then acting surprised at all the "foreigners."

Now I finally get it!!! Thanks for the so-called science lesson. When we stand before our Creator in the resurrection, there will be no question as to God's how.

Blessings

Glad you learned something... For your next lesson, maybe you'll figure out that when we stand before our Creator in the resurrection, He's not going to give us a pop quiz on science.

 

[John 10:10]

It's called "Theistic Evolution." perhaps you should look at the title of the thread?

Glad you learned something... For your next lesson, maybe you'll figure out that when we stand before our Creator in the resurrection, He's not going to give us a pop quiz on science.

I don't have a problem with those who want to believe that all life and our existance came about thru something called "theistic evolution."

I do have a problem with a so-called science that says there's scientific proof to a high degree of accuracy that all life and our existance actually came about thru theistic or any other kind of evolution.

I fully recognize that evolutionists will never give an inch on this point, even those who believe in something called "theistic evolution."

 

[metherion]

Did you ever define 'high degree of accuracy' anywhere or is it just a phrase you use?

If you have, can you link the post? If you haven't can you please do so so we can start making headway to the goalposts and make sure they don't get moved?

Metherion

 

[gluadys]

No, you are confusing rejecting agency and mechanism as an explanation with saying that agency does not exist. God working though natural means, is to science, supernatural, as the being of God is supernatural. In other words, saying "God guided evolution" is not scientific, as that is a supernatural explanation.

Science rejects all supernatural mechanism, and thus by default, rejects all supernatural agencies.

God guided evolution is not a scientific statement. That is correct.

But it doesn't make the statement false. A statement doesn't have to be scientific to be true. It just has to be scientific to be part of science.

Science does not reject supernatural agency. It rejects making supernatural agents & mechanisms part of a scientific explanation.

And that's good. God as a hypothesis not only doesn't work well in science; it is poor theology as well as it undermines God's sovereignty and makes him subject to experimental/observational falsification.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I don't have a problem with those who want to believe that all life and our existance came about thru something called "theistic evolution."

Great... God will have even less of a problem.

I do have a problem with a so-called science that says there's scientific proof to a high degree of accuracy that all life and our existance actually came about thru theistic or any other kind of evolution.

I'm afriad that what you've got a problem with there is commonly referred to as "reality," defined as "That which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

I fully recognize that evolutionists will never give an inch on this point, even those who believe in something called "theistic evolution."

You'll find that the round-Earthers, the heliocentrics, and those who insist that 2+2=4 are equally stubborn... and for the same reasons.

You didn't think you were going to convince anyone, did you?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Except it doesn't say that. Evolution goes... 'hrm, let's figure out the mechanisms behind how evolution works.' It doesn't say "we're going to assume some intelligent agency is not guiding the mechanisms", just as it doesn't say "we're going to assume some intelligent agency IS guiding the mechanisms." It says nothing either way. A lack of a position is not a negative position.

You are right, science does not go 'we will assume no guiding intelligence in the case of evolution'. Instead, it goes 'Axiom: All explanations worthy of being considered are natural.' That is to say, it assumes the above in the case of all science.

All it says is "here are the mechanisms that make it work and why they work in making it work, and the evidence that supports it."

Can it say 'and God was the force behind it'? No, it cannot. No empirical evidence can ever lead to that conclusion unless God is empirical.

Why is the utter lack of a position so hard for people to wrap their head around?

Because no position is a default position against the existence there of.

For me, there is no difference in "I do not believe in Zeus (as a deity)" and "I believe Zeus (as a deity) is a false concept".