Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[Anthony022071]

Please give us a few explanation that uses natural causes and include God.

Explanations of what in particular?
The biblical and doctrinal accounts of creation and divine providence use natural causes and include God. So are the biblical miracle stories.
The doctrines of creation and divine providence are not just about God,they are also about natural things. God's activity in nature does not abolish natural causation.

If you have a natural explanation that doesn't mention God, is that the same as "excluding God"?

Not necessarily,unless you deliberately don't mention God as a matter of principle,and where his power should be acknowledged.
By definition,methodological naturalism excludes God from working in nature.

 

[Mallon]

Indifference to God, is the opposite of God. Though the intensity of that indifference might vary, it begins with indifference.

Maybe from the perspective of salvation, which is an all or nothing thing. But we're not talking about salvation; we're talking about God's place in nature -- in which case, agnosticism is most definitely NOT the same thing as atheism.

Science cannot do away with God.

And yet we have creationists here arguing this very point.

 

[Anthony022071]

So is God present in natural phenomenon or not? You can't on the one hand say that a natural explanation of natural phenomenon excludes God and therefore must be rejected and then on the other say that God is present and active in natural phenomenon.

Of course God is present in natural phenomena. I did not say what you think I said. The theory of evolution is not just an explanation that uses natural causes,it is an explanation that does not allow for God to be working in nature,because it attributes to natural mechanisms and processes to produce all organisms. Not only does it contradict Church doctrine,but it contradicts reason itself,because it attributes to natural mechanisms and processes the ability to do things they do not have the power to do.

Why is God active in, say, the movement of the stars and the birth of children (which we can explain through purely naturalistic means) but can't be active in the evolutionary process?

What evolutionary process? Things change,yes,but not in the manner or to the extent described by evolution theory.

Why put a box around the Almighty like this?

I'm not the one who wants to limit God's activity in nature.

 

[shernren]

So let's get this straight. Let's say I were looking up at a storm, and watching lightning go throughout the sky. I deduce, based on my study of nature, that the path of the lightning is explained by natural causes (and in particular by Maxwell's Equations for electromagnetism).

I take it that you would not consider me to be limiting God?

 

[Mallon]

Of course God is present in natural phenomena.

The theory of evolution is not just an explanation that uses natural causes,it is an explanation that does not allow for God to be working in nature,because it attributes to natural mechanisms and processes to produce all organisms.

How is that not a complete contradiction in terms? Within two sentences, no less. In one sentence you say that God is present in nature; in another you say that natural mechanisms preclude God.

 

[Deaver]

First, so there is no doubt, I am a Christian that believes what the Bible says. I also believe that God created everything. He also created us with intelligence so we can be discerning.

Now let’s look at two major theories of biological evolution:

Microevolution happens every day: an uncontroversial , unequivocally proven through numerous scientific studies, naturally occurring biological phenomenon. It includes concepts such as mutation, recombination, natural selection, etc., within a single species, a group of organisms that interbreed with each other—that is, they all share a gene pool.

Macroevolution is somewhat more controversial: a purely theoretical extrapolation of microevolution that requires the introduction of new genetic information. It was proposed as a mechanism responsible for large-scale patterns of evolution, which are distinct from micro-evolution, the generic and small-scale factors that contribute to gradual change within populations.

Now let’s look at a summary of the Genesis theory of Creation:

God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in the following order:

· Day 1: The earth without any form; water; light
· Day 2: The sky, the earth’s atmosphere
· Day 3: The bodies of water; the dry land; vegetation
· Day 4: The sun, moon, and stars to serve as signs, seasons, days, and years.
· Day 5: The aquatic creatures; the birds
· Day 6: The land creatures; man

Can these two things, evolution and creation, work together?

As a Christian, I believe in creation (In the beginning God created&#8230 with ongoing micro-evolution of the species.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27 KJV)

In the debate of creation vs. evolution many have a problem with the concept of the word “day”. Was “day” a literal 24 hours as we use it today or was it something else.

In the story of creation, Genesis 1, the actual number of words in Hebrew is much fewer than that of the English translations. Also the words "and there was" are not in the Hebrew, but added to make the English flow better. The actual translation is "evening and morning 'n' day."

We can not be definitive as to the length of a “day” because there is no way to discern it from the context. In addition, one would expect that if God chose to create the world in a few days He would have indicated it was all created in a few days instead of one day as it says in Genesis 2:4, “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens”(KJV). This verse (2:4) indicates to me that the Genesis days are other than 12 or 24 hour periods of time.

The micro evolution which all of us can observe and is a proven, for example: House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides.

Having said all of that, I would argue that after God created everything, over the years (6,000 years or 13,700,000,000 years) all living things have experienced some microevolution, under God’s direction, using ideas such as transformation, recombination, natural selection, and others.

 

[Mallon]

How do you explain the nested hierarchy of life, Deaver?

 

[gluadys]

First, so there is no doubt, I am a Christian that believes what the Bible says. I also believe that God created everything. He also created us with intelligence so we can be discerning.

Now let’s look at two major theories of biological evolution:

Microevolution happens every day: an uncontroversial , unequivocally proven through numerous scientific studies, naturally occurring biological phenomenon. It includes concepts such as mutation, recombination, natural selection, etc., within a single species, a group of organisms that interbreed with each other—that is, they all share a gene pool.

It also includes speciation, the division of a gene pool into two separate pools with little or no gene flow between them. Or rather speciation is the dividing line between micro- and macro-evolution.

However, it is quite easy to see that the other items you listed will result in speciation when populations become isolated from others in their species for one reason or another.

Macroevolution is somewhat more controversial:

Not among scientists.

a purely theoretical extrapolation of microevolution

It is far from purely theoretical. There is a good deal of evidence supporting macro-evolution. (Unless you are using a strawman definition of "macroevolution". Perhaps you should set out exactly what you mean by "macroevolution".)

that requires the introduction of new genetic information.

What makes you think that microevolution does not also require new genetic information? In any case, new genetic information is not a problem. There are several ways of producing new genetic information.

It was proposed as a mechanism responsible for large-scale patterns of evolution,

Not as a mechanism, no. Macro-evolution does not need any mechanism other than micro-evolution and the opportunity to divide gene pools. There is no distinct mechanism of macro-evolution. The term merely refers to the continuing course of evolution as it applies beyond the limits of a single species.

which are distinct from micro-evolution, the generic and small-scale factors that contribute to gradual change within populations.

Gradual changes change a species. Gradual changes in separated populations of a species change each of them differently, and the result is two species from one. Repeat the process many times and you have the great panorama of the nested hierarchy of species.

Now let’s look at a summary of the Genesis theory of Creation:

God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in the following order:

· Day 1: The earth without any form; water; light
· Day 2: The sky, the earth’s atmosphere
· Day 3: The bodies of water; the dry land; vegetation
· Day 4: The sun, moon, and stars to serve as signs, seasons, days, and years.
· Day 5: The aquatic creatures; the birds
· Day 6: The land creatures; man

Can these two things, evolution and creation, work together?

yes.

The micro evolution which all of us can observe and is a proven, for example: House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides.

We also see new species. When some mosquitoes were trapped in the London (UK) subway system, they evolved to the living conditions there and are now a different species from the above-ground mosquitoes. That is only one of many examples of observed speciation.

Having said all of that, I would argue that after God created everything, over the years (6,000 years or 13,700,000,000 years) all living things have experienced some microevolution, under God’s direction, using ideas such as transformation, recombination, natural selection, and others.

And the consequence has been the gradual emergence of many new species down through the ages each diverging into different forms adapted to different habitats. Through modern genomic studies scientists are tracing the history of many of these speciations and transformations with great success. They confirm many of the conclusions inferred earlier from anatomical evidence.

I have always found evolution, an elegantly simple concept, despite the complexity of the details, to be a wonderful testimony to the wisdom and patience of God.

 

[Assyrian]

Now let’s look at a summary of the Genesis theory of Creation:

God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in the following order:

· Day 1: The earth without any form; water; light
· Day 2: The sky, the earth’s atmosphere
· Day 3: The bodies of water; the dry land; vegetation
· Day 4: The sun, moon, and stars to serve as signs, seasons, days, and years.
· Day 5: The aquatic creatures; the birds
· Day 6: The land creatures; man

Can these two things, evolution and creation, work together?

Surely if Genesis 1 can be reconciled with Genesis 2 where God first creates:
man,
then all the plants,
then all the beasts and all the birds,
then woman,
there should be no problem reconciling both of them with evolution.

In the story of creation, Genesis 1, the actual number of words in Hebrew is much fewer than that of the English translations. Also the words "and there was" are not in the Hebrew, but added to make the English flow better. The actual translation is "evening and morning 'n' day."

You need to be careful here, I was caught out with this myself. It sounds as though you are using one of those bibles probably a King James with Strong's links? Because while it is very useful, it doesn't give you all the Strong's links. The verb to be, H1961 occurs twice in that section

..... one ...... ... day ........... morning was and .... evening was and

וַֽיְהִי־עֶרֶב ... וַֽיְהִי־ב קֶר ... יֹום ... אֶחָֽד׃ פ
​

 

[USincognito]

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/

Paul, just to let you know, this link doesn't work any more.

 

[Greg1234]

How do you explain the nested hierarchy of life, Deaver?

Group Theory and Architecture, 1.

 

[Papias]

Oh of course, Greg! That must be why you've claimed cars are in a nested hierarchy. Remember, you said you could give us a meaninful nested hierarchy of cars?


http://www.christianforums.com/t7497864-6/


I don't think you ever delivered on that. How about now, Greg, if your "group theory" thing is really applies to things designed from the start?

Thanks-

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

Oh of course, Greg! That must be why you've claimed cars are in a nested hierarchy. Remember, you said you could give us a meaninful nested hierarchy of cars?

Here's a simple measure: All Cars have four wheels. Show me a Car without four wheels.

 

[Assyrian]

 

[Greg1234]

I asked for Cars, chief.

 

[Mallon]

Group Theory and Architecture, 1.

That doesn't answer my question. How do geometric transforms relate to what we're discussing?

I asked for Cars, chief.

Those sure look like cars to me.

 

[Greg1234]

That doesn't answer my question. How do geometric transforms relate to what we're discussing?

Wait for it.

Those sure look like cars to me.

How many had four wheels? (all Cars have four wheels http://www.christianforums.com/t7562094-10/#post57687665)

 

[Mallon]

Wait for it.

How long do I have to wait before you provide an explanation?

How many had four wheels? (all Cars have four wheels http://www.christianforums.com/t7562094-10/#post57687665)

Ahhhh... I see how that works.

In that case, show me a human with six fingers.

 

[Greg1234]

Ahhhh... I see how that works.

In that case, show me a human with six fingers.

When you're ready your Nobel is waiting. By the by, you and your compatriot just refuted the nested hierarchy.

 

[Mallon]

When you're ready your Nobel is waiting.

Great! And I'm still waiting on that explanation you owe for how the link you provided earlier relates to our discussion.

By the by, you and your compatriot just refuted the nested hierarchy.

Are you referring to the nested hierarchy of life? How was it refuted?