How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?

[pgp_protector]

I know what you meant..



But, shouldn't they be?



He knew what you meant..



Same here... Not fair folks.



But this here is funny.


-

So do you want people to be literalists or not ?
If Yes, then shouldn't we also take your postings literal ?

 

[Tiberius]

He knew what you meant.. -

What I meant? He's the one asking us to look at the original Hebrew texts when they do not exist. The issue here is what PT Calvanist meant, isn't it?

 

[LightSeaker]

What for? What is so special about literalism?

I think that being a literalist is a big deal. For example, I literally see God creating life through the window we call evolution.

.

 

[gluadys]

I think that being a literalist is a big deal. For example, I literally see God creating life through the window we call evolution.

.

But I don't think that is what JustSumGuy meant.

 

[Assyrian]

I think that being a literalist is a big deal. For example, I literally see God creating life through the window we call evolution.
.

Nice metaphor

 

[JusSumguy]

I think that being a literalist is a big deal. For example, I literally see God creating life through the window we call evolution.

I agree. But for me it's how it was accomplished that is at issue.

This is where literally comes in. Science can't (SCIENTIFICALLY) dispute the bible on the fact that MAN JUST STARTED. In fact, science can't dispute the bible on any creation point. If it could, I would be first in the the "admit it" line.

Science can say this and that, but they are all conjectures when it comes to creation. Some better than others, but none the less.... conjectures and hypothesis.

I await the usual wall of---> "Oh yeah, what about this?"


-

 

[gluadys]

I agree. But for me it's how it was accomplished that is at issue.

This is where literally comes in. Science can't (SCIENTIFICALLY) dispute the bible on the fact that MAN JUST STARTED. In fact, science can't dispute the bible on any creation point. If it could, I would be first in the the "admit it" line.

Science can say this and that, but they are all conjectures when it comes to creation. Some better than others, but none the less.... conjectures and hypothesis.

I await the usual wall of---> "Oh yeah, what about this?"


-

Why do you see science as having a "dispute" with the bible?

What do you mean by "Man just started"?

What does "literally" have to do with the rest of your post? Where is it that "literally" comes in and why?

Excuse alll the questions. I am just trying to figure out the meaning of what you are saying.

 

[PT Calvinist]

What I meant? He's the one asking us to look at the original Hebrew texts when they do not exist. The issue here is what PT Calvanist meant, isn't it?

I meant what I meant and more...

 

[JusSumguy]

Why do you see science as having a "dispute" with the bible?

I don't. I have said that some scientists have a "dispute" with the Bible. But I personally believe that the Bible is right in step with science.

I'm just trying to make sure this "natural thinking process" of accepting that we started out of the goo, and the entire reasoning process that follows gets put in it's place. Over there in the conjecture barrel.

To think, as I used to, that God lit a match in the goo and ALL THE REST HAPPENED ON IT'S OWN is contrary to what it says in the Bible. While this may sound good. And ease some peoples minds. It's contrary to the Bible.

It never works to say "well maybe God meant this when he said that.".......... He said what he said, and it is what it is.

What do you mean by "Man just started"?

There are no links to any other species. The most science can scientifically say, is that we just started. Surreptitiously, that's precisely what it says in the Bible.

They find a point where we started and, try as they might, they can't find anything.....species, monkey, meerkat or alien that would lead to that. Though they try. And they postulate and fight logic with feigned inside intelligence. BUT NO PROOF.

As a matter of fact, that's pretty much the story for all species. Hmmm.... just like it says in the Bible.

What does "literally" have to do with the rest of your post? Where is it that "literally" comes in and why?

The term "literalist" was used in the post I quoted.

Excuse alll the questions. I am just trying to figure out the meaning of what you are saying.

No prob. I hope you can see deep inside my soul now.


-

 

[Tiberius]

I meant what I meant and more...

I'm sorry, but this isn't at all clear...

 

[jarrettcpr]

I'm sorry, but this isn't at all clear...

What he meant is he meant more than what he first meant. Meaning that there is more meant that is being meant.

As far as the question of the thread. How does one become a theistic evolutionists...

...well you learn about science, first off. Once you do that you can do the process of elimination. First we know the Earth is not 6-10 thousand years old. So, we can first cross out YEC. (I'm sure I'll get someone saying, you do know that carbon dating is faulty). After that we can cross out progressive creationism since from science we know animals were not made separate and unique from one another. The last thing we can also cross out is intelligent design (ID). We can cross out ID, since we know natural selection does in fact take place.

What are you left with... theistic evolution (TE).

Either way to the believer...

God is the un-caused caused or the first cause.

 

[laconicstudent]

We can cross out ID, since we know natural selection does in fact take place.

How exactly does natural selection disprove ID? My understanding is the main argument against ID was that there was no reason to postulate a designer, and IC wasn't supported by any research, and so we discarded it by Occam's Razor as making an unnecessary assumption.

 

[jarrettcpr]

How exactly does natural selection disprove ID? My understanding is the main argument against ID was that there was no reason to postulate a designer, and IC wasn't supported by any research, and so we discarded it by Occam's Razor as making an unnecessary assumption.

From my understand Intelligent Design (ID) opposes natural selection.

Here are some exerpts...

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2]

Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for the origin and diversity of life. It stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on the scientific method to explain life through observable processes such as mutation and natural selection.[29][30]

Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled.

I could very well be wrong, but I thought ID was against natural selection.

If it is we can cross it out.

 

[Willtor]

ID argues that natural selection is insufficient to account for _all_ changes, but it admits that it is sufficient for most. The trouble is that all of the examples ID proponents raise of unbridgeable gaps are bridged.

 

[laconicstudent]

Ah that makes sense then. Personally I think its more fun to wait for them to claim its "Impossible" for life to evolve without designer, and then demand they cite the paper from which they draw their conclusions.

I find the most typical response is blustering. They usually ignore it, then if you persist they say I must not be very educated if I've never heard of "all the proof" of IC and a Designer. The more you respond to them by asking them to cite their sources, the angrier they get, oddly.

 

[jarrettcpr]

ID argues that natural selection is insufficient to account for _all_ changes, but it admits that it is sufficient for most. The trouble is that all of the examples ID proponents raise of unbridgeable gaps are bridged.

Seems I have some more studying to do.

So, ID proponents basically subscribe to the gap theory in the sense that they bring up 'arguments', but most if not all are now bridged?

They can definitely argue for fine tuning and I'd be right there cheering them on.

 

[Markus6]

From my understand Intelligent Design (ID) opposes natural selection.

ID argues that natural selection is insufficient to account for _all_ changes, but it admits that it is sufficient for most. The trouble is that all of the examples ID proponents raise of unbridgeable gaps are bridged.

I'm pretty sure there is a range among those who subscribe to ID. You get some who are 6 day creationists (hence the textbook in the Dover trial was a creationist textbook with the word "creator" changed to "intelligent designer") and you get those, like Michael Behe, who accept that evolution by natural selection explains a great deal but believe they can scientifically prove that it can't explain everything. ID seems to be an attempt to unite all of those who are critical of evolution, whether they are completely disregarding it (and lots of other science) or whether they just point to a few examples where it breaks down.

 

[Dark_Lite]

ID is a movement that came straight out of the creationist camps in an attempt to make creationism sound like creationism. There are large similarities between both movements. The same denial of plain evidence in order to support certain ideas (i.e. "irreducible complexity"), the thought that their scientific papers aren't getting published on part of some conspiracy in the scientific community, etc.

Things like the wedge strategy easily point to this being the case. ID's main proponents and ideas come out of places like the Discovery Institute, who tightly couple ID to YECism, even if they try to avoid that language in some official statements.

 

[sfs]

There are no links to any other species. The most science can scientifically say, is that we just started. Surreptitiously, that's precisely what it says in the Bible.

No, science can also scientifically say that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor between five and seven million years ago, and then give lots and lots of evidence for this being true.

 

[Tiberius]

ID argues that natural selection is insufficient to account for _all_ changes, but it admits that it is sufficient for most. The trouble is that all of the examples ID proponents raise of unbridgeable gaps are bridged.

This may be (I haven't heard this exact summary of ID, but I won't say that it is wrong), but if this is the case, then ID will have to provide some way of determining which biological structures are capable of arising through evolution by natural selection and which structures can only come about through the intervention of a higher power. it would also have to provide examples of such structures.

ID of any definition would also have to explain why the bits done by the intelligent designer look just like they were evolved.