Theistic evolution and Gods Intervention

[LoG]

The theological stance that accepts evolution as real and the theory of evolution as scientifically valid, and so incorporates them into a theistic world-view.

So TE's accept both Micro and Macro Evolution? Just want to be clear on that.

This biological heritage does not imply that humans are not special in their human spiritual nature or in their relationship to their creator.

Never thought of that even. So when during the evolutionary process did man get a spirit different from the rest of the species or is it a evolutionary process also? Wouldn't this also require a heaven and hell that evolves also? ie. The more intelligent a species become the more responsibility they have in attaining rewards in the afterlife? I realize that may sound facetious but spiritual logic would seem to dictate something to that effect.

While Noah's flood may have devastated a large region of the world, it was not literally a global flood.

Do all TE's believe that or do some take the normal scientific view that there was no flood at all?

The theory of evolution makes no comment on spiritual matters such as the fall, sin, the need for or the means of redemption, etc. For an understanding of such matters, Christian TEs take direction from the same sources all Christians do: the revelation of God as manifest in the incarnation of the Word in Jesus of Nazareth, the testimony of the prophets and apostles, and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, as all of these are preserved in the teachings of the Church and the inspired writings of Holy Scripture.

I can't help but think that if there is any consistency in the bible these aspects would be even more of a myth than the stuff that there is "hard evidence" for. Like where is the scientific proof for the "witness of the spirit" or the testimony of the prophets. Moses was a prophet and look at all the myths he wrote about creation. Maybe all his writings were myth. Do we have any hard evidence that God actually gave him the 10 commandments? Moses by "scientific proof" told a lot of stories. I say it would be dumb on that basis to believe anything he wrote.

 

[gluadys]

Some good questions here.

So TE's accept both Micro and Macro Evolution? Just want to be clear on that.

Evolution is a single process which includes micro- and macro-evolution. You cannot have macro-evolution without micro-evolution and you cannot have micro-evolution without macro-evolution as an end product. So the short answer is "yes".

Never thought of that even. So when during the evolutionary process did man get a spirit different from the rest of the species or is it a evolutionary process also?

There is no scientific way of detecting a spiritual nature even in living species. Science cannot say that humans have a spirit but dolphins do not. So obviously there is no scientific means of saying when humans made a transistion from biological to biological-spiritual beings.

Wouldn't this also require a heaven and hell that evolves also? ie. The more intelligent a species become the more responsibility they have in attaining rewards in the afterlife? I realize that may sound facetious but spiritual logic would seem to dictate something to that effect.

No, this is not spiritual logic at all. Heaven is opened by the grace of God, not by any human achievement or merit. It certainly has nothing to do with intelligence since children and the mentally impaired have as much, if not more, chance of entering heaven as scholars and geniuses do.

Do all TE's believe that or do some take the normal scientific view that there was no flood at all?

Science doesn't say there was no flood at all. It doesn't identify any particular flood as Noah's flood, because there is no evidence to make that connection yet.

Another possibility is that there was a flood, but no Noah.

I can't help but think that if there is any consistency in the bible these aspects would be even more of a myth than the stuff that there is "hard evidence" for.

If you have hard evidence, you know you are not dealing with myth. Perhaps some legend or myth has become attached to the hard evidence, but you do have evidence that something real happened.

Anytime you are dealing with something for which no hard evidence can exist, you know you are not dealing with science, and if the matter is believed, it must be by faith not on the basis of evidence.

Like where is the scientific proof for the "witness of the spirit" or the testimony of the prophets.

There is none.

Moses was a prophet and look at all the myths he wrote about creation. Maybe all his writings were myth.

Maybe. Maybe even Moses is a myth.

Do we have any hard evidence that God actually gave him the 10 commandments?

No we don't.

Moses by "scientific proof" told a lot of stories. I say it would be dumb on that basis to believe anything he wrote.

Only someone who thinks all truth must be verifed fact would say that. That is the impact of modernism on philosophy and it leads to atheism and naturalism i.e. the philosophical position that nature is all there is. There is no creator and nature was not created.

Christians, like the people who wrote the bible, subscribe to something called faith which is defined as "evidence of things not seen". We take subjective, personal experience of a mystical, spiritual nature just as seriously as objective physical evidence.

 

[LoG]

Evolution is a single process which includes micro- and macro-evolution. You cannot have macro-evolution without micro-evolution and you cannot have micro-evolution without macro-evolution as an end product. So the short answer is "yes".

Hmm, gluadys micro and macro are driven by different dynamics. Micro is quite possible through hereditary factors instead of mutations but wouldn't be adequate for macro.

There is no scientific way of detecting a spiritual nature even in living species. Science cannot say that humans have a spirit but dolphins do not. So obviously there is no scientific means of saying when humans made a transistion from biological to biological-spiritual beings.

If there are no tests than how do we know Dolphins don't have a spirit?

Science doesn't say there was no flood at all. It doesn't identify any particular flood as Noah's flood, because there is no evidence to make that connection yet.

Another possibility is that there was a flood, but no Noah.

[size=-1]Uniformitism, is about the absence of the catalysmic style of flood that we read in Genesis.[/size]

If you have hard evidence, you know you are not dealing with myth. Perhaps some legend or myth has become attached to the hard evidence, but you do have evidence that something real happened.

Anytime you are dealing with something for which no hard evidence can exist, you know you are not dealing with science, and if the matter is believed, it must be by faith not on the basis of evidence.

What about punctuated equilibrium? Since that is Mr.Gould's explanation for the lack of hard evidence for gradualism of evolution in the fossil record, it seems that it isn't simply about hard evidence. Why is PE a theory and not a myth? I find it rather confusing and bordering on the hypocritical that an unproven theory in the scientific realm whereas in Creationism it is a myth even though Creationism seems much more in tune with the evidence that is there.

Only someone who thinks all truth must be verifed fact would say that. That is the impact of modernism on philosophy and it leads to atheism and naturalism i.e. the philosophical position that nature is all there is. There is no creator and nature was not created.

Christians, like the people who wrote the bible, subscribe to something called faith which is defined as "evidence of things not seen". We take subjective, personal experience of a mystical, spiritual nature just as seriously as objective physical evidence.

The psych sciences have theories and proofs of what makes the human mind work and what it needs for emotional health that doesn't include anything requiring a God. If it "science" it must be valid or is only certain sciences?

 

[gluadys]

Hmm, gluadys micro and macro are driven by different dynamics.

No they are not.

Micro is quite possible through hereditary factors instead of mutations but wouldn't be adequate for macro.

Both mutations and hereditary factors are required for all evolution.

If there are no tests than how do we know Dolphins don't have a spirit?

We don't know. The basis of animistic religions is that all things in nature do have a spirit. Dolphins, willow trees, mountains and springs of water, etc. etc. We cannot demonstrate that we monotheists are right and the animists are wrong. We make a choice of faith. Just as they do.

Uniformitism, is about the absence of the catalysmic style of flood that we read in Genesis.

This is an incorrect understanding of uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism does not forbid catastrophic events. If it did, it could not handle the evidence that earthquakes and volcanoes and meteor strikes occurred in the past. Uniformitarianism agrees that any catastrophe which can happen today could have happened in the past and will leave the same sort of evidence in the geological record as present-day catastrophes leave.

What about punctuated equilibrium? Since that is Mr.Gould's explanation for the lack of hard evidence for gradualism of evolution in the fossil record, it seems that it isn't simply about hard evidence.

It is not an explanation of lack of evidence. It is an explanation for the way some of the fossil evidence is arranged.

Why is PE a theory

Because it is based on evidence and predicts an arrangement of evidence which has been born out in subsequent studies. And uses only natural explanations without resorting to supernatural action.

even though Creationism seems much more in tune with the evidence that is there.

A statement that can only come from someone who has only a very superficial acquaintance with the evidence. The evidence actually falsifies creationism.

The psych sciences have theories and proofs of what makes the human mind work and what it needs for emotional health that doesn't include anything requiring a God. If it "science" it must be valid or is only certain sciences?

Valid scientific theories must be based on evidence. I am not familiar enough with psychology to evaluate the strength of evidence in that field. But I am curious to where studies of a "God gene" will lead.

If it is verified that religiosity is genetically based, is that evidence that God does not exist--or evidence that God does exist?

 

[disciple777]

I look forward to you posting why you think evolution is impossible. So far, in your post, you have presented no agrument that would valadate your claims or discredit the claims of Evolutionists.

By the way, I was under the assumption that our faith was based on the life, death and raising of Jesus, and his teachings. With the faith that Jesus gave me, my home is built on a solid foundation.

God bless you.

The big question for which Evolution has no answer is the origin of life. As a chemist, I became curious about a classical experiment by Miller. When he subjected methane, carbon dioxide and ammonia to an electric spark, he was able to demonstrate the creation of a mixture of basic amino acids. This is phenomenal. However, the experiment did not go any further. This mixture stayed as a Racemic mixture of Basic amino acids (Mirror images of the same amino acid). Amino acids are basic building blocks of Proteins. In nature, only the L-forms ( Mirror image) of the compouds are biologically active. The opposite form (D-form) is biologically inactive. In fact, the D-forms act as biological poisons. So, In a mixture, if you have the L form, then it is useful. If you have even a trace the D-form, it acts as an inhibitor of the biological processes.

Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. All enzymes are proteins. For example, we have to form an enzyme at random. Miller's mixture only has 50:50 of the same amino acid. Proteins (enzymes too) are made up of 20 different amino acids. So, this mixture is not enough to make aprotein. Then the possibility of only the L-forms of all the 20 amino acids "CHEMICALLY" attaching themselves to form the Enzyme is less than 1 in 10 raised to the power of 42. (1 X 10 x10 x10 >>>>>>>>>upto 42 times). This is a statistical improbability.

Such a phenomenon can never occur naturally. According to Carl Sagan who was an author of many Science fictions, this is possible. But, real Science proves otherwise. Chemical Evolution does not occur.

For life processes to begin, the basic prior well organized cellular architechture is necessary even for a Unicellular organism. Cell is made up of Complex carbohydrates, proteins and fats. Random self organization through Naturalism of this structure is impossible. It has never happened. It will never happen even if given millions of years. Chances are than they will be decomposed even within few days.

If our solid faith is based on Jesus Christ, then we must believe His Word, the Bible( from cover to cover). In the beginning, there was Word. The word was with God and the Word was God. God spoke the Word and everything came into existence. In the book of Genesis, we read that God created the plants and animals of different kinds all at once. Kind refers to different species. After all the animals and plants were created, then God made man out of dust and blew in his nostrills and he became alive. From Adam's rib, God created Eve. This scripture shows that we did not evolve from monkey or pig. But, we are special creations of God.

Dr. William Behe is a Professor of Biochemistry. Please read his master piece, "The Black Book"

 

[disciple777]

Your posts reveal that you do not understand how the term "randomness" is used in physics. The word "random" in popular usage is generally used in a negative sense, as if to imply that anything that deviates from predetermined consequences is unacceptable. However, randomness and even "chaos" as used within the language of physics refers not so much to "disorganization" as much as it describes the probabilities at play in every physical interaction that occurs within the universe. On the macro scale (stars, galaxies, people, oceans, etc.), these probabilities are not significantly felt, as the sheer size and scope of the field of interactions is so huge. This gives the appearance of what you describe as "order." However, on the quantum (or micro) level, probability and "chance" rule the day, and interactions regularly occur that cannot be "predicted."

I would suggest that you look beyond the "order" which you believe exists and that you see on the macro level of the universe and see what the universe looks like up close (on the micro level). You might be surprised to find upon what your "order" is based....

This is hard for me to explain. However, I will try. Everyone talks about the random interactions of subatomic patricles from which we derived physical laws. We still do not understand what is causing this phenomenon. Looking at all the orderly universe, I cannot imagine that God the creator of the universe had left out the subatomic particles to interact randomely. Perhaps there are few unidentified subatomic particles that we do not know of.

I have performed molecular excitation using laser and UV radiations. Even these electrons which are excited are not random. They are orderly and they stay in their own orbits.

ORDER:Example: In our solar system, all planets have their own orbits and the elliptical orbit of earth around the sun gives different seasons. For example, it either the motion or the direction of any planet is altered, then the weather pattern will change drastically and life will become extinct. The motion and direction are extremely prcise and very well maintained. This is known as Order. This is asimple example. Of course there are too many that we know. Randomeness to me means "Chaos".

 

[notto]

Random self organization through Naturalism of this structure is impossible. It has never happened. It will never happen even if given millions of years. Chances are than they will be decomposed even within few days.

Good thing nobody is saying that chemistry and biochemistry is random.

You are arguing against a strawman.

 

[notto]

Dr. William Behe is a Professor of Biochemistry. Please read his master piece, "The Black Book"

If it is such a master piece, you would think you would get the title correct.

 

[gluadys]

The big question for which Evolution has no answer is the origin of life.

No problem. That is not the question evolution purports to answer.

 

[disciple777]

I look forward to you posting why you think evolution is impossible. So far, in your post, you have presented no agrument that would valadate your claims or discredit the claims of Evolutionists.

By the way, I was under the assumption that our faith was based on the life, death and raising of Jesus, and his teachings. With the faith that Jesus gave me, my home is built on a solid foundation.

God bless you.

This is great. Yes, our faith though unseen and invisible is the only foundation we all have. Thank God. However my reference has nothing to do with our faith.

Origin of life is the basis of all our faith, understanding of science as well as our lives. Evolution does not address this issue. How did we come here is a basic question we all must answer. Evolution has no answer. This is why I referred this to a foundation of a building as an analogy.When there is no foundation, no one can build a superstructure. Even if one builds, it will crumble.

I believe that you regard Bible as the true word of God. If so, the book of genesis must be true. Here we read that God created the plants and animals of their kinds(referring to species) all at once. There was no gap. After God created everything else, then, He created Man in His own image.

This shows that man had no ancestors. Every plant and animal species had no ancestors. This is where our problem is. Our belief in Evolution and God's instant creation both cannot be true. Only one can be true. Which one is this?

I will show later how Evolution is impossible.

 

[gluadys]

This is great. Yes, our faith though unseen and invisible is the only foundation we all have. Thank God. However my reference has nothing to do with our faith.

Origin of life is the basis of all our faith, understanding of science as well as our lives. Evolution does not address this issue.

Since evolution is not about the origin of life, why should it address this issue?

 

[notto]

I will show later how Evolution is impossible.

Please do so in the main Origins forum and in a new post. That would be off topic here.

I look forward to reviewing your strawman.