It's time to stop being afraid of ridicule

[dwb001]

Yeah, bc you’re right and everybody else is wrong.

I am just looking at the quality of your teaching ability here and it does not look as if you got your moneys worth.

 

[FaithT]

I am just looking at the quality of your teaching ability here and it does not look as if you got your moneys worth.

Apparently you didn’t. I’m not the one who posted that I went to classes for this.

 

[dwb001]

Apparently you didn’t. I’m not the one who posted that I went to classes for this.

Hey these things happen. Whoops.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey these things happen. Whoops.

@dwb001, y'know, it probably wouldn't hurt for all of us to at least attempt to be a little nicer to each other being that we are all fellow believers in Jesus Christ, especially where the 'origins' issue pops up its ugly head. I have no need to verbally beat on other Christians who may disagree with me.

 

[dwb001]

@dwb001, y'know, it probably wouldn't hurt for all of us to at least attempt to be a little nicer to each other being that we are all fellow believers in Jesus Christ, especially where the 'origins' issue pops up its ugly head. I have no need to verbally beat on other Christians who may disagree with me.

You treat heresy your way and I will treat it mine.

 

[John Helpher]

Although Theistic Evolution is not well designed. Other than to say whatever evolution is, this is how God did what He did.

Right, the point of calling it Theistic Evolution is to indicate to whomever is listening that God is responsible, but then, why not call it theistic design? That would be more accurate than calling it evolution. The theory of evolution, as an explanation, states that there is no guidance behind evolution. There is no purpose. There is no creator.

Taking that concept and tacking it on to "theistic" doesn't really change the nature of what it fundamentally means to anyone who hears it. It would be a bit like a vegetarian naming their shop "100% Beef!" but actually serving tofu burgers. If anyone complains, they can say, "It's just the name of the shop. Whatever you assume about the food is up to you."

 

[Diamond7]

The theory of evolution, as an explanation, states that there is no guidance behind evolution. There is no purpose. There is no creator.

That was the old theory. NOW evo devo is taking over and that says all of creation is regulated by laws. So if you were to start all over again at the beginning, you would end up with pretty much the same as what we now have.

Evolutionary developmental biology provides insights into the underlying laws, principles, and processes that govern the evolution and development of organisms. It explores how genetic and developmental mechanisms can lead to the incredible diversity and complexity of life on Earth.

 

[John Helpher]

That was the old theory. NOW evo devo is taking over and that says all of creation is regulated by laws. So if you were to start all over again at the beginning, you would end up with pretty much the same as what we now have.

Nah, this is a cheat that came about when people started realizing just how cold and dead the theory of evolution really is. It's a bit like how the natural selection thing essentially became a stand-in for a computer program. This way, they could say there was no creator but still feel good about having been guided by some rational process.

This "regulated by laws" argument is like that. It is appealing because there are two kinds of laws; one is the kind of law that is observed as something which happens consistently according to specific conditions and the other is a law which is crafted to suit a specific purpose, like creating a law that one must stop at a red traffic light. The appeal is in how these two can get a little bit mixed up along the way.

Just like the ethereal ideal of natural selection could be warped into an actual computer program guiding evolutionary mutation, so too do the laws of physics become warped into some kind of purposeful guidance that will always result in all the finely tuned information complexity that we see even in the laws themselves.

 

[Diamond7]

This "regulated by laws" argument is like that. It is appealing because there are two kinds of laws; one is the kind of law that is observed as something which happens consistently according to specific conditions and the other is a law which is crafted to suit a specific purpose, like creating a law that one must stop at a red traffic light. The appeal is in how these two can get a little bit mixed up along the way.

it's essential to recognize and appreciate the distinct nature and purposes of natural laws and man-made laws. Understanding this difference helps us navigate both the physical world and societal systems effectively while appreciating the beauty and order in both domains.

 

[John Helpher]

Understanding this difference helps us navigate both the physical world and societal systems effectively while appreciating the beauty and order in both domains.

Annnnd, misunderstanding it, like what can easily happen when mixing up the two, can lead some people to believe their existence is still meaningful even without a creator-god, because "laws" did it.

 

[NBB]

theistic evolution sounds like they want to mix God with evolution, it just doesn't work.
The intervention of God in this supposed process makes it ID not evolution.
It seems ID is like a bad word or something for some people, we have a soul inside, that God put there, we are not a piece of meat made by luck. Our own intelligence was given by God, so the body too, and everything else.

 

[Diamond7]

And, misunderstanding it, like what can easily happen when mixing up the two, can lead some people to believe their existence is still meaningful even without a creator-god, because "laws" did it.

For some, understanding natural laws and the processes of the universe in a scientific framework can lead to a worldview that excludes the necessity of a creator-god in explaining the cosmos and life's existence. They may argue that the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and other scientific principles can account for the complexities and phenomena observed in the natural world.

The question of where the fundamental laws of the universe come from is a topic that has intrigued philosophers, scientists, and thinkers for centuries, and it continues to be a subject of exploration and debate. We can not even observe a law. We just see it's effect. At a fundamental level, natural laws are descriptive—they describe how the natural world behaves. However, they do not, in themselves, explain their own origins or why they exist. They are a reflection of the regularities we observe in nature.

 

[John Helpher]

They may argue that the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and other scientific principles can account for the complexities and phenomena observed in the natural world.

Except, such conclusions are not based on any real-world observations. We see no example of organized information happening without a mind. You say that the laws of physics don't explain themselves, which makes using them as an explanation for how we came to be useless. It would be like arguing that the cake was obviously baked in the oven upon which it is sitting, but, where did the oven come from? You can't even observe the oven cooking; you only see the results of a cooked cake.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Right, the point of calling it Theistic Evolution is to indicate to whomever is listening that God is responsible, but then, why not call it theistic design? That would be more accurate than calling it evolution. The theory of evolution, as an explanation, states that there is no guidance behind evolution. There is no purpose. There is no creator.

Taking that concept and tacking it on to "theistic" doesn't really change the nature of what it fundamentally means to anyone who hears it. It would be a bit like a vegetarian naming their shop "100% Beef!" but actually serving tofu burgers. If anyone complains, they can say, "It's just the name of the shop. Whatever you assume about the food is up to you."

Theistic Evolutionist call it what they call it because they disagree with Michael Behe and friends and, thereby, don't think that there are irreducibly complex indicia of "design." No, evolutionists generally just see change in organisms through time, but with no direct indications of intentional design along the way.

So, Theistic Evolution, like the sort that Francis Collins subscribes to, is different theoretically from the Intelligent Design which Michael Behe subscribes to.

Understand the difference?

 

[John Helpher]

Yes, it is this indirect indication that I'm referring to. Why does it exist in the first place, even if only indirectly? It reminds me of the miraculous program argument I mentioned earlier, where people suggest natural selection is a kind of indirect program which just happens to not need a programmer. It's irrational, but they allow themselves to believe it because in their minds it's not a leap of faith to believe in a miraculously self-compiling program, but rather a reasonably assumed necessity for the theory to be true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, it is this indirect indication that I'm referring to. Why does it exist in the first place, even if only indirectly? It reminds me of the miraculous program argument I mentioned earlier, where people suggest natural selection is a kind of indirect program which just happens to not need a programmer. It's irrational, but they allow themselves to believe it because in their minds it's not a leap of faith to believe in a miraculously self-compiling program, but rather a reasonably assumed necessity for the theory to be true.

The difference often comes about due to scientific methodology, John. Most practicing scientists who are evolutionists are Methodological Naturalists, and the reason they don't "count" indirect indicia of what may appear to be agency and design is because the scientific method as it pertains to Experimental Science precludes the inclusion of those interpretive elements.

So, you can have a Methodological Naturalist who is both an evolutionist and a Christian and who will then simply settle for affirming his or her own angle of Theistic Evolution as a form of "Creation" but STILL refrain from calling it "Design."

 

[Diamond7]

Except, such conclusions are not based on any real-world observations.

That is the weak link in their chain and that is why Science is agnostic. Atheists claim science supports their atheism but that simply is not true. We live in a world of cause and effect. You can not have an effect without a cause.

The principle of cause and effect is fundamental to our understanding of the natural world. It asserts that every event or phenomenon is the result of a preceding cause or a set of causes. This principle is a cornerstone of scientific inquiry, logical reasoning, and our overall comprehension of the universe.

 

[Diamond7]

There's no such thing as theistic evolution. There's either evolutionary theory or intelligent design. Because they are opposing theories, it does not make sense to mash them together.

I do not see any conflict at all. I study the Bible, Ancient History and Science like Biology and Astro Physics. I do not see any conflict at all. If it were not for Science most of us would not even be alive to have this conversation.

People see a conflict between Christians and the Hebrew people. Even though they gave us out Bible and we would not have a Bible if it were not for them. If people see a conflict either they lack understanding or they are sticking with traditions of man that Jesus warns us about.

1. Mark 7:6-8 (NIV): Jesus criticized the Pharisees and teachers of the law for placing their traditions above the commandments of God. He quoted Isaiah, saying, "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules."
2. Mark 7:13 (NIV): Jesus continued in the same context, stating that these human traditions make the word of God null and void, having a negative impact on people's faith and understanding of true spirituality.

 

[Valletta]

So you throw out a book of the Bible because it does not suit your theology?
I don't even do that with the RCC extras. I don't study them but I don't throw them out wholesale.
Exodus 20:11 restates the creation timeline.

Of the original 73 books of the Bible, seven books were moved within the King James and then entirely physical deleted from the KJV in the 1800s. Those books were never "extras."

 

[dwb001]

Of the original 73 books of the Bible, seven books were moved within the King James and then entirely physical deleted from the KJV in the 1800s. Those books were never "extras."

Potato-Potato Tomato-Tomato.