Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I take it the theory of evolution (or cosmic evolution, as some call it) is broken down into seven sub-theories (for lack of a better word).But there's no particular connection between that molding Italian food and the biological theory of evolution.
But when people speak of "evolution," the default position is biological evolution.
Not stellar evolution, not chemical evolution ... biological evolution.
Seems to me it should be a matter of choice, don't you think?Yes.
Seems to me it should be a matter of choice, don't you think?
If not, where's the rule of thumb that says:
THOU SHALT NOT USE THE WORD EVOLUTION OUTSIDE OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION
(I'm serious about this question. Do they teach that default position in the classroom?)
I think we're both in agreement here.All of those other things *DO* use the word "evolution", they just don't us it unmodified (stellar, chemical, etc.). It is only in biology that the term is used without modifier.
That’s because it is science not religion. Science does not address religious beliefs. Theistic evolution would be based on religion and would not be science and therefore not actually about evolution.There are a few differences between theistic evolution and the ToE. The main ones are the ToE is silent about anything that has to do with God or Adam and Eve. Josh Swamidass' book the Gemological Adam & Eve was an attempt to bridge the gap at least for A&E and his book did receive endorsements from several atheists and theologians.
I agree it is the addition of religion that makes it Theistic evolution. The non-scientific religious belief is God as the ultimate cause which is accepted by nearly every Christian believer and which is not part of the ToE. Biblical liberalism is just as opposed to Theistic evolution as they are to the ToE so we should continue to remind them that they are a secular minority among Christians.That’s because it is science not religion. Science does not address religious beliefs. Theistic evolution would be based on religion and would not be science and therefore not actually about evolution.
Did you mean biblical literalism rather than liberalism? I would have thought the Biblical liberals would be in favour of both ToE and Theistic evolution. Or, do I just not understand the terminology correctly?I agree it is the addition of religion that makes it Theistic evolution. The non-scientific religious belief is God as the ultimate cause which is accepted by nearly every Christian believer and which is not part of the ToE. Biblical liberalism is just as opposed to Theistic evolution as they are to the ToE so we should continue to remind them that they are a secular minority among Christians.
I will challenge you on that. The ability of the mold to extract nourisment from that Italian food and to have secured a spot on the food in the first place, is overwhelmingly the result of biological evolution.But there's no particular connection between that molding Italian food and the biological theory of evolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?