How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?

[lawtonfogle]

I don't think you can actually become one. I think it just matters what you believe. If you believe that God created the universe using evolution then you sure are wrong but that would still make you a Theistic Evolutionist.

No duh. Anyone who believes that evolution can create universes (outside of works of fiction, of course) is wrong.

 

[lawtonfogle]

The FACT is "we DO know how it happened" and so we are not appealing
to ignorance.

The FACT that information comes from an Intelligent Source is NOT an
appeal to ignorance. I would easily assert the Law of Information and
open it up for falsification.

If you can create complex information that is useful from random
processes, THEN you have falsified the Law of Information.

Just as Mike Behe has opened up Intelligent Design for falsification,
so also I would say that the Law of Information is falsifiable.

We DO know where DNA/RNA came from...and the only ignorance is
coming from those who deny theistic implication and "ignore" where
the evidence points to.... it is NOT an appeal to ignorance because
we are NOT claiming we don't know.

This is something that only those who have a false definition for
science have done.

Digital philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is the first thing about some "Law of Information" that I came across that even appeared to maybe possessing a chance of possibly being relevant to this.

Also...

If you can create complex information that is useful from random
processes, THEN you have falsified the Law of Information.

Do you know the difference between pseudo-random and true randomness?




Finally, any Intelligent agency must itself have some form of information (the mere fact we attribute the status of intelligent or agency is information). Where then did this information come from? And if you suggest that an intelligent being can create the information for itself, then humans are sufficient for creating this intelligence, for we are the ones who describe the world around us.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Theistic evolution doesn't belong in textbooks because the theistic part is not scientific.

You do mean the theistic part of theistic evolution, not the entire thing, right?

 

[gluadys]

Because it is based on how we each define rejecting and ignoring. I use the words a bit more fluidly than you do, thus semantics.

I think what many of us are suggesting is that you exercise more discipline in your use of these terms.

 

[JusSumguy]

I think what many of us are suggesting is that you exercise more discipline in your use of these terms.

The epitome of diplomacy.


-

 

[gluadys]

When did I ever mention X being evidence for something? Maybe I mistyped something somewhere.

I start off by saying either A (using different variables here to reduce possible confusion) does or does not exist. Now, I can take the active stance A does 'not exist', or I can take the passive stance A does not 'exist', which then, because there are only two possible states, leads me to passively being saying that A does 'not exist'. Only when I actively state I do not know am I making a claim where what I am stating the value of if A exist is not set (or more so, it is set, I do not know which one).

Actually, I find this even more confusing than your earlier posts on this topic. As I see it there are three possible positions: A exists. (claim) A does not exist (rejection of claim) I do not know if A exists or does not exist (ignorance). You seem to be conflating rejection and ignorance.

As to science, science science is not a person who is able to believe in things. Science is a discipline which works under only empirical evidence. God has no empirical evidence point to Him. So before we even start using science, we can assume God is not going to ever be invoked by science. I think the issue here is we are trying to turn science into a person with beliefs or views, and saying that science has this view or that view.

Since several people responding to you are professional scientists (not myself) it is probably not a good idea to think they don't know what they mean by "science".

I think an important point is that not invoking God does not imply rejecting God. It does not even imply that God is not present in the scientific process in some way. For theists, the reason God is not invoked is not based on an assumption of God's absence, but on an assumption of God's constant presence. But this makes God also an untestable invariable. We cannot make an observation or perform an experiment from which God can be excluded.

So, from a theistic perspective, science does not invoke God as an explanation of natural process because God is not a testable variable whose presence or absence makes a difference---since God is always present and sustaining the world of nature as it is.

So it is incorrect to say that science works from the view point of no God. Science works from the view point that God is not an empirically testable variable.

You may not see a difference in those statements, but theologically there is a world of difference.

 

[metherion]

I start off by saying either A (using different variables here to reduce possible confusion) does or does not exist.

And there is the problem. You can also say “I don’t know” or “I have no opinion”. Yes, I am personifying science a tad, but the stance science as a whole takes on something can be likened to a person taking a stance on something.

Let’s say... I am science.
God is not empirical.
I (as science) can only know about empirical things.
Since God is not empirical, I cannot know anything about God.
So I cannot know anything about God.
Therefore I can say neither “God does exist” nor “God does not exist”.
Therefore I cannot deny passively or actively the existence of God. Neither can I confirm it.

So before we even start using science, we can assume God is not going to ever be invoked by science.

Yes. This is correct. But that does not mean that science actively or passively denies the existence of God.

I think the issue here is we are trying to turn science into a person with beliefs or views, and saying that science has this view or that view.

Anthropomorphizing science to relate the axioms used in preforming it to a person and their beliefs is in fact a valid tactic that gets the point across. But science is not an actual person, you are correct.

What I originally stated is that science works from the view point of no God, because, being that God is non-empirical and that science is only empirical, we can see that science cannot ever use God as an answer unless the nature of God changes.

But science does not work from the viewpoint of ‘no God’, science works from the viewpoint of ‘no position on God’.

No duh. Anyone who believes that evolution can create universes (outside of works of fiction, of course) is wrong.

Especially because evolution only deals with life after its formation. How life changing could be responsible for creating the universe I haven’t the foggiest.



Also, I had several pages in a thread a short while ago where I talked about the idea of ‘useful information’ and conservation of information, etc.

Boiled down, it works likes this:
According to the Law of Information, the sum total of information in the universe is either constant or decreasing. (opposite of entropy, which is either constant or increasing). Entropy is a special kind of information measurement that is inversely proportional to the information change in the system (i.e. entropy up, information down). Furthermore, the amount of information changed when entropy changes is VASTLY larger than the amount from normal information, i.e. that dealt with in computers or the like. Furthermore, ‘information’ in the terms of the Law of Information is not equivalent to the everyday usage of the term.

So we have two choices. Either so called ‘biological’ information (which is never defined by the by) does or does not follow the Law of Information. If it does NOT, the entire point is moot.

If it DOES, then the fact that the information is generated and changes by chemical reactions that follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics means that due to the reaction, the total entropy of the system increases. Since if total entropy increases, total information DECREASES, even if ‘meaningful biological information’ sprouts up where there was none before, more information in other forms was lost in the same reaction that created the biological information, so the point is STILL moot.

Metherion

 

[Mick116]

I don't think you can actually become one. I think it just matters what you believe. If you believe that God created the universe using evolution then you sure are wrong but that would still make you a Theistic Evolutionist.

Why can't you become one? If a "young-earth special creationist" changes his views based on his understanding of the evidence and accepts creationism through evolutionary processes, hasn't he "become a theistic evolutionist"? Or am I missing your point?

 

[lawtonfogle]

I think what many of us are suggesting is that you exercise more discipline in your use of these terms.

You should see how fluidly I can use the words chili peppers and acupuncture. I mixed them up in my communications class on Monday. The teacher and two students understood what I was talking about, but the rest of the class was so confused that some of their jaws actually fell open.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Actually, I find this even more confusing than your earlier posts on this topic. As I see it there are three possible positions: A exists. (claim) A does not exist (rejection of claim) I do not know if A exists or does not exist (ignorance). You seem to be conflating rejection and ignorance.

More of a stance that science is unable to be ignorant on the issue because of how it is set up to work.

Since several people responding to you are professional scientists (not myself) it is probably not a good idea to think they don't know what they mean by "science".

But not everyone here is, no? Anyways, science is one of those terms where it takes a book to fully define it. Kinda like 'love'.

I think an important point is that not invoking God does not imply rejecting God. It does not even imply that God is not present in the scientific process in some way. For theists, the reason God is not invoked is not based on an assumption of God's absence, but on an assumption of God's constant presence. But this makes God also an untestable invariable. We cannot make an observation or perform an experiment from which God can be excluded.

I agree that science cannot test God, and thus either accept or reject Him. I am saying that science rejects the supernatural as part of its foundation.

As we have already discussed, science either rejects or ignores the supernatural. One key question is what is the difference between those two. How do they differ in their end result.

So, from a theistic perspective, science does not invoke God as an explanation of natural process because God is not a testable variable whose presence or absence makes a difference---since God is always present and sustaining the world of nature as it is.

This does not seem to differ between rejection and ignoring.

So it is incorrect to say that science works from the view point of no God. Science works from the view point that God is not an empirically testable variable.

Only as much as it treats Thor, magical gnomes which hold the planets together, and any other things I can think of as non empirically testable variables.

I am sitting on a jury. The defense gives some interesting statement (maybe they claim Santa made them do it (Santa, not Satan)). I choose to ignore their explanation when deciding if they are guilty. How is this any different from me choose to reject their explanation after the fact? While I am still making my choice, I can stop ignoring, but I can stop rejecting as well.

You may not see a difference in those statements, but theologically there is a world of difference.

I'm not seeing it. When I say science rejects God, I see science as a tool and I realize it does not give absolute truths.

 

[Tiberius]

So? No one is claiming that "theistic" is a scientific part of "theistic evolution". All of the science of "theistic evolution" is already in biology textbooks, just like all of the science of "theistic chemistry" is already in chemistry texts and all of the science of "theistic physics" is already in physics texts and all of the math of "theistic math" is already in mathematics texts.

The theistic part is in theological texts like the bible.

I am only saying that the idea of a deity of whatever nature being behind evolution does not belong in the science class. Because a guiding force behind evolution is not a scientific idea.

I have no problem with theistic evolution being taught in religion classes.

You do mean the theistic part of theistic evolution, not the entire thing, right?

I mean the entire thing. Any religous belief is not scientific, because it can't be tested and it can't be falsified. Science - all science - is falsifiable. That is one of the defining points of science. It can be shown to be wrong. Religion can't.

I'm not saying this to say the religion is wrong. I'm saying this to show that religion - any religion - has no place in the science class.

It's the same logic that says that English has no place in a mathemetics class. And art has no place in a geography class.

 

[Breckmin]

Finally, any Intelligent agency must itself have some form of information (the mere fact we attribute the status of intelligent or agency is information). Where then did this information come from?

The Creator is NOT just information. The Creator is an Infinite Personal
Existence that needs no source. The fact that information comes from
an Intelligent Source does NOT mean that the information IS the Intelligent
Source.

This is the fallacy of atheists and their foolishness.

 

[Mallon]

I am only saying that the idea of a deity of whatever nature being behind evolution does not belong in the science class.

Is anyone here arguing that?

 

[gluadys]

I am only saying that the idea of a deity of whatever nature being behind evolution does not belong in the science class. Because a guiding force behind evolution is not a scientific idea.

I have no problem with theistic evolution being taught in religion classes.

I quite agree. The problem arises when "evolution" and "theistic evolution" are described as if they referred to differing theories of evolution. Hence the response to the statement that we won't see theistic evolution in biology textbooks any time soon is that the "evolution" referred to in "theistic evolution" is already in those textbooks.

Theistic evolution as a theistic understanding of evolution, as a theistic position about evolution (but not as a different theory of evolution) does properly belong in religion classes.

I mean the entire thing. Any religous belief is not scientific, because it can't be tested and it can't be falsified.

And that is the distinction that has to be reinforced. (In fact it is why there are a growing number of TEs who prefer the term "evolutionary creationism). We have to get away from the notion that "theistic" and "atheistic" evolution say different scientific things about evolution.

They don't.

So we don't need special science textbooks on "theistic evolution". The science TEs accept is already in the standard science texts.

What we do need is an understanding that theistic evolution, aka evolutionary creationism is about religion, not about science.


And just like young-earth creationism, ID or any other form of creationism, it belongs in the religion class, not in the science class.

 

[LightSeaker]

I am only saying that the idea of a deity of whatever nature being behind evolution does not belong in the science class.

I completely agree with this.

.

 

[Tiberius]

Is anyone here arguing that?

And yet you have people in the USA who want to teach ID in the classroom. What is ID other than theistic evolution (at best) in disguise?

 

[Assyrian]

Anti-evolution creationism in disguise?

 

[Mallon]

And yet you have people in the USA who want to teach ID in the classroom.

Sure. But again, is anyone here arguing that?

What is ID other than theistic evolution (at best) in disguise?

Are you serious? They're not at all the same. Even Dembski has said, "Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution."

 

[Drekkan85]

And yet you have people in the USA who want to teach ID in the classroom. What is ID other than theistic evolution (at best) in disguise?

Do you have any idea what Theistic Evolution actually is? If not, please re-read the posts made earlier, look it up, and realise that TE and ID are completely different beasts.

 

[marlowe007]

Do you have any idea what Theistic Evolution actually is? If not, please re-read the posts made earlier, look it up, and realise that TE and ID are completely different beasts.

But in the minds of militant atheists, there's no essential difference between TE's and creationists (to quote PZ Myers):

Oh, come on now. I know Mooney isn't a creationist — I read the book. The problem is that if you look at Mooney/Nisbet through the lens of their recent publications, all you can see on this issue is sympathy and support for theistic evolutionists.

And, I'm sorry, but theistic evolutionists are creationists. They're just creationists who accept evidence and readily back off from specific claims about their creator god, but they still place faith in unwarranted assumptions about the existence and interventions of a supernatural being, they just tuck it into the gaps in our knowledge. What makes theistic evolution somewhat acceptable to scientists is that its proponents are so willing to run away from their faith when challenged.