Theistic Evolution, do you believe it?

[Mallon]

we also believe that God's glory is equally evident in both the natural and the supernatural; both declare His glory, both are equally used to accomplish His purposes.

Now compare that with IIL's words:

Naturalism and a bible believer dont mix.

 

[philadiddle]

Now compare that with IIL's words:

I think that IIL is referring to philosophical naturalism and us TEs are referring to methodological naturalism. That's probably part of the disagreement.

 

[Mallon]

I think that IIL is referring to philosophical naturalism and us TEs are referring to methodological naturalism. That's probably part of the disagreement.

I'm sure you're right. I guess the point is that the theory of evolution does not presume ontological (or philosophical) naturalism. It presumes methodological naturalism. And if you have a problem with methodological naturalism, then you had might as well reject all of science and go live in a cave.

 

[EveryTongueConfess]

You can go with Gap Theory if you want. The evidence that we have is that the Earth is not 6,000 years old, and that evolution happened. Gap Theory is a hard sell because the evidence we have points to a constantly evolving (not related to biological evolution for those of you who like to play word games) universe, not something that hung out for million/billion year stretches before God created the next thing.

Perhaps the Earth only appears 4.5 billion years old, and in reality perhaps it is around 15000 years old?

(just saying...wondering what you would say)

 

[Dark_Lite]

Perhaps the Earth only appears 4.5 billion years old, and in reality perhaps it is around 15000 years old?

(just saying...wondering what you would say)

That is the Omphalos hypothesis, and it makes God into a liar. As we know, God is not the author of confusion and he is certainly not a liar.

 

[crawfish]

Perhaps the Earth only appears 4.5 billion years old, and in reality perhaps it is around 15000 years old?

(just saying...wondering what you would say)

Here's the issue - if the universe is 4 billion years old or if it's just made to seem that way, does it really matter? Either way, the science would be interpreting data the only way it possibly could, and young-earth creation science would be wrong.

 

[interested in life]

I'm sure you're right. I guess the point is that the theory of evolution does not presume ontological (or philosophical) naturalism.

Hold on,thats actually not accurate.The theory of evolution seems to tie in quite nicely with ontological naturalism.Im not sure how you can deny that.Quite easy for me to point at the multitude of atheist websites that place the two together,just because you dont presume it,doesnt mean its not the most popular view with evolutionists.

It presumes methodological naturalism. And if you have a problem with methodological naturalism, then you had might as well reject all of science and go live in a cave.

lol im sneezing.Try to stick to the topic please.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Hold on,thats actually not accurate.The theory of evolution seems to tie in quite nicely with ontological naturalism.Im not sure how you can deny that.Quite easy for me to point at the multitude of atheist websites that place the two together,just because you dont presume it,doesnt mean its not the most popular view with evolutionists.

Science is about methodological naturalism-- it is agnostic. This is true of evolution and every other scientific theory. Methodological naturalism can certainly fit in with ontological naturalism, but it is not a requirement. It doesn't particularly matter how many "atheist websites" you can point at. They are atheist websites for a reason. Of course they are likely to promote ontological naturalism. That is because they are atheist sites, not because they promote evolution. It should be noted, though, that one can be atheist without being an ontological naturalist.

lol im sneezing.Try to stick to the topic please.

It's very relevant, unless for some strange reason you are making a distinction between science that disagrees with your beliefs (evolution) and science that doesn't disagree/is neutral to your beliefs (everything else). If you are making that distinction (which I think you are), why?

 

[Mallon]

Hold on,thats actually not accurate.The theory of evolution seems to tie in quite nicely with ontological naturalism.Im not sure how you can deny that.

Gravity and epigenesis tie in nicely with ontological naturalism, too. Do you reject those theories on that basis as well?
The fact of the matter is that gravity, epigenesis, and evolution have nothing to do with ontological naturalism. They are inferred on the basis of methodological naturalism alone. ON is imposed by atheists a posteriori. Evolution -- or any science, for that matter -- does not rise or fall based on whether God exists or not.

Quite easy for me to point at the multitude of atheist websites that place the two together,just because you dont presume it,doesnt mean its not the most popular view with evolutionists.

Who cares what atheist evolutionists say about science and religion? You appear to value their words more than evolutionary creationists themselves do.

 

[interested in life]

Don't struggle. You can believe in the message of Genesis and with Christ as savior despite the overwhelming evidence for evolution and an ancient universe, no matter what some will say.

I agree.There just isnt much evidence for goo-zoo-you.

We believe in "naturalism" in that we believe that natural causes are behind creation.

Now this is starting to ignore Genesis.And the irony is the more study they do on our origins the more obvious it is that there must of been supernatural intelligence behind creation.Even the most simple lifeforms are extremely complicated,and have not been created by "natural" means in a lab.If man cant replicate it then why are you claiming mere natural forces can?

This does not necessarily prohibit supernatural tinkering on God's part, but it does mean that we do not assume the supernatural at any point other than the absolute beginning.

Once again ignoring what Genesis says.He created directly each according to their kind or he didnt.He made man in his image or he didnt.If you think some magic protozoa is Gods image?

However, we also believe that God's glory is equally evident in both the natural and the supernatural; both declare His glory, both are equally used to accomplish His purposes.

Would also taking his word for it ,be part of declaring his glory?I think so.
TEs account of genesis looks different.I see issues arising from this.I see TEs here reading this denying other aspects of genesis.Its progression heh.

 

[interested in life]

meh i just quickly browsed the rest of the forum,seems like this topic has been talked about repeatedly.
wheel reinvention

 

[Mallon]

meh i just quickly browsed the rest of the forum,seems like this topic has been talked about repeatedly.
wheel reinvention

If that stopped any of us, this forum would have ended a long time ago.

 

[philadiddle]

interested in life,

Do you think God controls the weather as the bible says, or is the Godless "science" of meteorology (that relies on methodological naturalism) what controls the weather? Pick only one.

 

[ExaltedReign]

Do you think God controls the weather as the bible says, or is the Godless "science" of meteorology (that relies on methodological naturalism) what controls the weather? Pick only one.

That sounds like some weird people I saw while I was walking to work. They think that hurricane Katrina was because God hates the U.S. for excepting homosexuals.

It was God that created these sciences, and though he probably doesn't control them, he can.

I still stand on my point that knowing how we came to be isn't all that important, but its what happens to us that is important. Thats just my stance on creation.

I forgot, is Evolution considered fact? I thought theories weren't exactly fact.

 

[interested in life]

interested in life,

Do you think God controls the weather as the bible says, or is the Godless "science" of meteorology (that relies on methodological naturalism) what controls the weather? Pick only one.

What do i win?
God has the capability of controlling the weather but generally doesnt interfere in day to day processes.
I see what you are saying,and i never said meteorology isnt a godless science.Next you will tell me im a hypocrite for using a computer while denouncing the myth of TE.
Its like saying that God couldnt of created adam directly because God isnt involved in every conception.Its actually a non sequitur.
Whats with you people trying to make me say stuff that i havent even implied.?lol.
Hmm im noticing a pattern here.

 

[interested in life]

I guess you dont rate YHWH that highly in terms of intelligence.We are somehow teaching God.
His words are outdated.
The new gods of the current day like gould and dawkins,their words carry more weight.
You know why noone shifts their opinion?
2 different dogmas

 

[Mallon]

Its like saying that God couldnt of created adam directly because God isnt involved in every conception.

Read Psalm 139:13.
Why would you say that God isn't involved in every conception?

You haven't said it explicitly, but your words seem to imply that you think God does not work through natural processes. You appear to think that He is active only when He's performing miracles. If so, it's little wonder why you decry scientific theories like evolution.

Whats with you people trying to make me say stuff that i havent even implied.?lol.

Because you do imply very non-Christian perspectives about the relationship between God and nature. You're very quick to jump on evolutionary creationists for 'ignoring' the Bible, but you yourself don't seem to understand what it says either.

 

[gluadys]

I forgot, is Evolution considered fact? I thought theories weren't exactly fact.

Both actually.

It is a fact that species evolve i.e. their predominant characteristics change over generations.

The theory of evolution is about the natural mechanisms that produce these changes in species. Each of these mechanisms is, in turn, an observed fact. But the theory explains how they interact to produce evolution.

A third facet is the history of evolutionary change. (Phylogeny or common descent). Since evolution is a process occurring over time, it has a history. The history is also fact, but much of the history is still unknown, at least in fine detail, and some of it may never be known. Phylogenies are theoretical models of the actual history of evolutionary change based on 1) the fact that species evolve, 2) the theory of how species evolve and 3) factual evidence which supports the phylogeny.


People often confuse the theory of evolution with phylogeny and offer problems in phylogeny as problems in evolution. But the theory of evolution is primarily about the mechanism of evolutionary change, not about the historical pathway of evolutionary change. So there can be various proposals in phylogeny (theory of what the historical pathway of evolutionary change was) without affecting how that change occurred (theory of evolution).

So, overall, biological evolution refers to a) a fact: species change over generations, b) a theory of how these changes happen and c) a history of the changes that took place. More narrowly, "theory of evolution" refers only to b).

 

[philadiddle]

God has the capability of controlling the weather but generally doesnt interfere in day to day processes.
I see what you are saying,and i never said meteorology isnt a godless science.

I never implied that you said anything about meteorology, I was just asking you about it. But it seems that you accept it which means you have serious theological issues that you need to work through. The bible makes it clear that God controls the weather yet you accept a naturalistic approach to how the weather operates. Many atheist websites tie meteorology to ontological naturalism by declaring that it is another element of the universe that we have figured out and that there is no need for God. Meteorology fits nicely with the atheist perspective, yet you believe it. Shame on you.

 

[philadiddle]

I still stand on my point that knowing how we came to be isn't all that important, but its what happens to us that is important. Thats just my stance on creation.

I agree. And this is why understanding Genesis as it applies to us is much more important than trying to read it as a history/science textbook.

I forgot, is Evolution considered fact? I thought theories weren't exactly fact.

It's a fact that we evolved, the theory explains how it happened.