Non-theists...

[Northern Christian]

What do you think of theistic evolution?

 

[David Gould]

What do you think of theistic evolution?

No problem with it that I can see. I do not believe in a god but theistic evolution does not conflict with science in any way so there is nothing in it for me to worry about it. I used to be a theistic evolutionist (and I did not know there was any other kind of theist ...)

 

[Arikay]

Um, almost what david said.

I think it makes perfect sense for those that believe in god and based on the evidence, if there is a god, it looks like the correct view.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

The scientific christian is what I call em.


They use the same body of facts about evolution as I do for the most part. Some believe God guided evolution, that's where we differ. They also usually believe God started life. I don't really have an opinion on this since there is an absence of information in this area although I lean towards abiogenesis.

Can't disprove them because you can't prove that God didn't meddle with an unseen hand. Even if we can figure out the mechanics of abiogenesis and evolution 100% there is no way to disprove God having meddled, it will just be an unlikely possibility since we won't know 100% how and when it happened.

 

[DrLao]

About the same way I feel about theism. Nothing I can (or would) argue with, but I don't believe in it.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

What do you think of theistic evolution?

I'm all for it. I'm not against people believing in God(s), just against them ignoring and fabricating evidence. It's a great relief to see a theist who supports evolution.

 

[LadyShea]

Ditto

 

[Northern Christian]

Hum...most of the atheists I've met are pretty contemptous of the idea, declaring that "there is no reason to believe in theistic evolution" and "how do Christian evolutions explain original sin," ect.

 

[troodon]

Hum...most of the atheists I've met are pretty contemptous of the idea, declaring that "there is no reason to believe in theistic evolution" and "how do Christian evolutions explain original sin," ect.

If I may throw in my opinion

They are afraid of a Christianity they cannot falsify.

Hmm... perhaps afraid isn't the right word. They are used to a Christianity that they can falsify, and when one is proposed that they can't, they fight it. I could be wrong but that is my conclusion after a brief discussion with such a person in the Apologetics forum.

 

[TheBear]

?

 

[David Gould]

Hum...most of the atheists I've met are pretty contemptous of the idea, declaring that "there is no reason to believe in theistic evolution" and "how do Christian evolutions explain original sin," ect.

I agree that there is no reason to believe in it - that is why I am an atheist evolutionist.

I was a Christian evolutionist so I do not understand the other parts. Maybe it is because I was never exposed to YECism.

It is also fairly easy for the Christian evolutionist to refute the last part.

"At some point in the evolutionary process, a being emerged capable of a communion with God. God endowed this being with a soul. They were in perfect communion. Then this being chose to depart from this perfect communion."

Simple.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

?

A man of few words, but they're all jems.

 

[Brimshack]

If people wish to believe in God, and that God is directing evolution, then so be it, just so long as they do not confuse that belief with the scientific study of evolution. To the degree that some begin to describe evolution as genreating higher life forms, I think that is a pretty serious misconception that could be buttressed by Theistic assumptions, but such beliefs can be refuted as they arise. I would say that the prospect of Theistic evolution is a concern for me, but hardly something I would object to on principle.

 

[troodon]

To the degree that some begin to describe evolution as genreating higher life forms, I think that is a pretty serious misconception that could be buttressed by Theistic assumptions, but such beliefs can be refuted as they arise

What do you mean by this?

 

[David Gould]

I suspect Brimshack is talking about the myth that humans are more evolved than, say, cats. Or any other animal or plant. There is no evolutionary hierachy in that sense. Every plant or animal species around today is the result of many millions of years of evolution.


Of course, cats are superior to humans. But that is known through other means.

 

[Brimshack]

Precisely.

(…and yes, cats are the sole exception to the non-hierarchical nature of evolutionary processes.)

 

[ZaraDurden]

I think theistic evolution is fine, and I am often glad that people accept evolution and do not lie themselves out of reality.

But I can also see the danger that theistic evolution presents most christians and why it is not a popular stance. Theistic evolution makes a literal interpretation of genesis untrue, so you have to take the story of creation and of adam and eve to be a metaphor -- this creates at least 2 major problems.

1) if you take this story as metaphor, how do you decide what else in the bible should not be taken literally? It makes things in general much cloudier. Also, Jesus refers to some of the stories in genesis as fact, and if you want to take everything Jesus says as absolute truth, then something has got to give.

2) if the story of adam and eve is metaphor, then it makes the death of jesus less significant. Because of adam and eve we have the fall of man, and then you have jesus saving us with his death. If adam never ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge making men mortal and the whole original sin idea, then why did jesus have to die?

 

[Jet Black]

oh these are easy:

<christian>

But I can also see the danger that theistic evolution presents most christians and why it is not a popular stance. Theistic evolution makes a literal interpretation of genesis untrue, so you have to take the story of creation and of adam and eve to be a metaphor -- this creates at least 2 major problems.

I thought it was the most popular stance.....

1) if you take this story as metaphor, how do you decide what else in the bible should not be taken literally? It makes things in general much cloudier.

well that depends on your opinion of the purpose of the bible. If one sees the bible as a theological message on how to live life, and a one step guide to heaven, then there is no problem.

Also, Jesus refers to some of the stories in genesis as fact, and if you want to take everything Jesus says as absolute truth, then something has got to give.

If I said "that man has a grin like the cheshire cat" does the cheshire cat haev to exist?

2) if the story of adam and eve is metaphor, then it makes the death of jesus less significant. Because of adam and eve we have the fall of man, and then you have jesus saving us with his death. If adam never ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge making men mortal and the whole original sin idea, then why did jesus have to die?

Jesus had to die for our sins. Does it really matter whether someone ate a fruit a long time ago? we are sinning now aren't we? and he died for our sins now, and that is the important thing. If anything, it makes it better that adam and eve are a metaphor, because it stops us saying silly things like "why should I have to go to hell because some stupid woman listened to a talking snake and ate an apple that she shouldn't have done?"

</christian>

 

[Edward Vil - E for short]

What do you think of theistic evolution?

I guess. But where would we get the God from?

 

[Northern Christian]

I wonder if atheists are tolerant of theistic evolutionists just because they support their agenda. Talkorigins.org has an entire paper defending theistic evolution, but it was probably written by atheists.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of deal.