self-conflicted T.E. does not survive attention to details

[mark kennedy]

You asked me for my definition. I gave it. If you don't like it, that's your problem. Go propose your own, then.

No you didn't, my definition has been repeated throughout the thread. Your definition of evolution please.

 

[Hoghead1]

I didn't, I said it was one step removed, try to keep up.



I never said that, I said Darwinism is atheistic materialism. I also defined evolution which is something TEs with their great passion for science never seem to be willing to do.


No, you defined evolution as you understand it. Those of us into theistic evolution have also provided a solid definition. I just did and you paid no attention to it. So don't give me this jazz we haven't presented any definition.



Yea but refer to God as even the Designer, let alone Creator and the TEs descend like an angry mob.



As long as he does it by exclusively naturalistic process, suggest a miracle and it's another story.



Except the clear testimony of Scripture, including confirmation in the New Testament and flood stories in the deepest of antiquity.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

No, you defined evolution as you understand it. Those of us into theistic evolution have also provided a solid definition. I just did and you paid no attention to it. So don't give me this jazz we haven't presented any definition

You are descending into a downward spiral, a definition of evolution and a discussion of the doctrine of creation is all we need to get on topic. It's not rocket science, it requires no formal eduction, just a real definition. It has long been generally defined as the change of alleles in populations over time, it's a classic core tenant of the Modern Synthesis and virtually any evolutionary biology would accept that it is a sound working definition. You don't have a definition, you have an equivocation fallacy you are arguing in circles around and it's a downward spiral I have never seen a TE escape from.

Be the first, simply state your definition.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not chasing this in circles...catch you on the rebound.

 

[Hoghead1]

You are descending into a downward spiral, a definition of evolution and a discussion of the doctrine of creation is all we need to get on topic. It's not rocket science, it requires no formal eduction, just a real definition. It has long been generally defined as the change of alleles in populations over time, it's a classic core tenant of the Modern Synthesis and virtually any evolutionary biology would accept that it is a sound working definition. You don't have a definition, you have an equivocation fallacy you are arguing in circles around and it's a downward spiral I have never seen a TE escape from.

Be the first, simply state your definition.

Have a nice day
Mark

You are not paying attention to what I posted and you are doling a too much loudmouth stereotyping of us TE people. In case you have a reading deficiency and missed my previous post, I said I view evolution as creativity in action, the actualization of new-found possibilities for beauty, the birth of the novel and unexpected. Evolution is the actualization of creative potentiality. Evolution requires God, because all creativity requires a transcendental imagination or source of creative potentiality untrammeled by reference to the concrete and the particular.

 

[mark kennedy]

You are not paying attention to what I posted and you are doling a too much loudmouth stereotyping of us TE people. In case you have a reading deficiency and missed my previous post, I said I view evolution as creativity in action, the actualization of new-found possibilities for beauty, the birth of the novel and unexpected. Evolution is the actualization of creative potentiality. Evolution requires God, because all creativity requires a transcendental imagination or source of creative potentiality untrammeled by reference to the concrete and the particular.

Now you are equivocating evolution with creation. What I was trying to determine is the scientific definition for 'evolution'. Publish that definition in a Biology textbook for the public schools and it will be barred by the Federal Courts. Life requires God, evolution requires molecular mechanisms capable of providing the adaptive traits producing the diversity of life in all it's vast array. Perhaps that's not as poetic as your little muse but there are two things in light here. The creation of life and the evolution that follows.

Look, if you are not interested in a substantive discussion I've chased this kind of discussion in circles before. Bob is right, you guys never stand up to close scrutiny and it's always puzzled me. I mean, there are any number of ways of answering the question and an abundance of source material to base it on. Yet, the term evolution remains this nebulous, fallacious and ghost like aberration that can be just about anything you want it to be.

As for me, I have defined it. What is more I have discussed the doctrine of creation at length.

Thanks for the exchange but Bob was right, I wonder if he gets tired shooting fish in a barrel.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Hoghead1]

Now you are equivocating evolution with creation. What I was trying to determine is the scientific definition for 'evolution'. Publish that definition in a Biology textbook for the public schools and it will be barred by the Federal Courts. Life requires God, evolution requires molecular mechanisms capable of providing the adaptive traits producing the diversity of life in all it's vast array. Perhaps that's not as poetic as your little muse but there are two things in light here. The creation of life and the evolution that follows.

Look, if you are not interested in a substantive discussion I've chased this kind of discussion in circles before. Bob is right, you guys never stand up to close scrutiny and it's always puzzled me. I mean, there are any number of ways of answering the question and an abundance of source material to base it on. Yet, the term evolution remains this nebulous, fallacious and ghost like aberration that can be just about anything you want it to be.

As for me, I have defined it. What is more I have discussed the doctrine of creation at length.

Thanks for the exchange but Bob was right, I wonder if he gets tired shooting fish in a barrel.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Look, you asked me for my definition of evolution and I gave it. I am a theologian and that is how I would define evolution. I realize what I say wouldn't be appropriate in a scientific textbook. Big deal, so what? Science classes are not expected to teach theology. The rest of your post just seemed to be to be too much careless stereotyping on your part.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I didn't, I said it was one step removed, try to keep up.

I invite readers to check out post #70 in this thread and see these words:

Right! As long as God does it by exclusively naturalistic means, in perfect harmony with Darwinism which is nothing more then atheistic materialism, thus deism.

That doesn't read like deism is a step removed from atheistic materialism . . . it reads like deism is equal to atheistic materialism.

Try to keep up with your own posts.

Yea but refer to God as even the Designer, let alone Creator and the TEs descend like an angry mob.

When you deny evolution, you will be corrected. I suppose sometimes that feels like an angry mob.

Have a nice day
Mark

You have one too!

 

[Hoghead1]

I invite readers to check out post #70 in this thread and see these words:



That doesn't read like deism is a step removed from atheistic materialism . . . it reads like deism is equal to atheistic materialism.

Try to keep up with your own posts.
His problem is that he equates Deism with atheistic materialism. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Since Deism affirms a God, how could it be atheistic?





When you deny evolution, you will be corrected. I suppose sometimes that feels like an angry mob.




You have one too!

 

[mark kennedy]

I invite readers to

Define evolution

When you deny evolution, you will be corrected. I suppose sometimes that feels like an angry mob.

And when you use a word you do not assign a meaning to you will be challenged, even if you try to incite an angry mob.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Shameless fallacious rhetoric....wow....could they be more consistent?

 

[mark kennedy]

Look, you asked me for my definition of evolution and I gave it. I am a theologian and that is how I would define evolution. I realize what I say wouldn't be appropriate in a scientific textbook. Big deal, so what? Science classes are not expected to teach theology. The rest of your post just seemed to be to be too much careless stereotyping on your part.

Thought I had responded to this but ok, here we go again. Define evolution because I am not chasing these pedantic, fallacious arguments in circles. Your discussion of creation as essential doctrine is still pending so I suggest you get on that. A scientific definition will treat evolution as a natural phenomenon, not poetic prose.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Somehow it always happens, they have so much steam going into it but sooner or latter it's close encounters of the pedantic one liners.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Define evolution



And when you use a word you do not assign a meaning to you will be challenged, even if you try to incite an angry mob.

Have a nice day
Mark

The word evolution had a meaning before Darwin . . . change over time. Now, biological evolution is defined as change of alleles in a population over time. The same definition you have put forth.

 

[Hoghead1]

Thought I had responded to this but ok, here we go again. Define evolution because I am not chasing these pedantic, fallacious arguments in circles. Your discussion of creation as essential doctrine is still pending so I suggest you get on that. A scientific definition will treat evolution as a natural phenomenon, not poetic prose.

Have a nice day
Mark

I am not a scientist, I am a theologian. Science qua science is neutral on the existence of God. God is not a question for science. I realize some scientists have shared their views on God, one way or the other. But they have stepped out of the role of being a scientist and into the role of being a philosopher or theologian. There is a necessary division of labor in academia, which you are not honoring here. As an example, when I was in college bio. lab., I asked the professor if she felt frogs felt pain when we pithed them, as we were doing. She said that is not a question for biology, that is a question for philosophy. She was right, you know. To start with, I take a different approach from that of science. Science starts with the "out there" and then comes to us. I start with us and then move to the "out there."

 

[Hoghead1]

Thought I had responded to this but ok, here we go again. Define evolution because I am not chasing these pedantic, fallacious arguments in circles. Your discussion of creation as essential doctrine is still pending so I suggest you get on that. A scientific definition will treat evolution as a natural phenomenon, not poetic prose.

Have a nice day
Mark

I believe I have already answered this post.

 

[mark kennedy]

The word evolution had a meaning before Darwin . . . change over time. Now, biological evolution is defined as change of alleles in a population over time. The same definition you have put forth.

Indeed, the scientific definition is the change of alleles in populations over time. The import of population genetics from genetics is largely responsible for the expansion. You will find that most definition are focused on genetic variation. The link lists several, this one is perhaps the best one:

Organic ... evolution, or biological evolution, is a change over time of the proportions of individual organisms differing genetically in one or more traits; such changes transpire by the origin and subsequent alteration of the frequencies of alleles or genotypes from generation to generation within populations, by the alterations of the proportions of genetically differentiated populations of a species, or by changes in the numbers of species with different characteristics, thereby altering the frequency of one or more traits within a higher taxon (Futuyma 1986: 551). Definition Evolution
​

There are a number of kinds of natural selection and very often the concepts of microevolution, macroevolution and genetic drift associated with the phenomenon of biological evolution. What I am trying to point out is that the a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means isn't a scientific definition, it's a philosophical one.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I am not a scientist, I am a theologian. Science qua science is neutral on the existence of God. God is not a question for science. I realize some scientists have shared their views on God, one way or the other. But they have stepped out of the role of being a scientist and into the role of being a philosopher or theologian. There is a necessary division of labor in academia, which you are not honoring here. As an example, when I was in college bio. lab., I asked the professor if she felt frogs felt pain when we pithed them, as we were doing. She said that is not a question for biology, that is a question for philosophy. She was right, you know. To start with, I take a different approach from that of science. Science starts with the "out there" and then comes to us. I start with us and then move to the "out there."

If you do not want to accept or offer a definition of evolution because you are, 'a theologian', I have no problem. Let's move on to the doctrine of creation. The Nicene Creed affirms the doctrine of creation in the first three stanzas which include, incidentally, the Incarnation and the deity of Christ. It strongly underscores the miraculous nature of Christian conviction and the Nicene Creed has long been a standard for basic Christian theism, even on these boards.

So let's move 'out there', the doctrine of Creation can be defined by any competent theologian. How would you define it?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Hoghead1]

If you do not want to accept or offer a definition of evolution because you are, 'a theologian', I have no problem. Let's move on to the doctrine of creation. The Nicene Creed affirms the doctrine of creation in the first three stanzas which include, incidentally, the Incarnation and the deity of Christ. It strongly underscores the miraculous nature of Christian conviction and the Nicene Creed has long been a standard for basic Christian theism, even on these boards.

So let's move 'out there', the doctrine of Creation can be defined by any competent theologian. How would you define it?

Grace and peace,
Mark

I am a process theologian, process being a major movement in contemporary Christian thought.
I view creation as God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and potentiality into consciousness and self-actualization.

 

[mark kennedy]

I am a process theologian, process being a major movement in contemporary Christian thought.
I view creation as God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and potentiality into consciousness and self-actualization.

So are you saying you reject the Nicene Creed, Incarnation or the deity of Christ because a discussion of process theology belongs in another forum.

Have a nice day
Mark