Theistic Evolution - What is it?

[Ben_Hur]

Could someone please explain or direct me to a site that explaines theistic evolution, as it relates to Genesis/The Bible? I'm assuming Theistic Evolution means God directed, but that's as far as I can get by intuition.

 

[Vance]

Could someone please explain or direct me to a site that explaines theistic evolution, as it relates to Genesis/The Bible? I'm assuming Theistic Evolution means God directed, but that's as far as I can get by intuition.

Well, unlike YEC'ism, it is not some organized movement with a concrete agenda and manifesto.

And there is a wide spectrum of variations in belief among those who could be labeled as believing in Theistic Evolution.

The main point is just as you say: a belief that God created the universe and all that is in it and that, to the extent that evolution has played a part in the development of diversity of life on this planet, then God was the one who initiated and/or controlled this process, just as He initiated every other natural process we see working in our universe. No natural process, including evolution, happens without God, and can not be used to prove that God does not exist.

 

[notto]

The Talk Origins FAQ give a fairly good overview. From my understanding, Theistic evolutionists accept mainstream science as valid and does not allow acceptence of evidence and science to interfere with their understanding of their faith or their God as valid.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

Q1. Doesn't evolution contradict religion?

Not always. Certainly it contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, but evolution is a scientific principle, like gravity or electricity. To scientifically test a religious belief one first must find some empirical test that gives different results depending on whether the belief is true or false. These results must be predicted before hand, not pointed to after the fact. Most religious beliefs don't work this way. Religion usually presupposes a driving intelligence behind it, and an intelligent being is not always predictable. Since experiments judging religious beliefs cannot have predictable results, and may give different results under the same circumstances it is not open to scientific inquiry. St. Augustine commented on this in _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_.

Some religious beliefs do make predictions. These predictions can be tested. If a religious belief fails a test, it is the test that contradicts that religious belief. The theory which makes the correct prediction should have nothing to say on the matter. This does not mean that scientists don't sometimes make the mistake of saying a theory contradicts something.



Q2. Isn't evolution a religion?

Evolution is based on the scientific method. There are tests that can determine whether or not the theory is correct as it stands, and these tests can be made. Thousands of such tests have been made, and the current theories have passed them all. Also, scientists are willing to alter the theories as soon as new evidence is discovered. This allows the theories to become more and more accurate as research progresses. Most religions, on the other hand, are based on revelations, that usually cannot be objectively verified. They talk about the why, not the how. Also, religious beliefs are not subject to change as easily as scientific beliefs. Finally, a religion normally claims an exact accuracy, something which scientists know they may never achieve.

Some people build up religious beliefs around scientific principles, but then it is their beliefs which are the religion. This no more makes scientific knowledge a religion than painting a brick makes it a bar of gold.

So the answer is no, evolution is no more a religion than any other scientific theory.

 

[Dutchunter]

Well, unlike YEC'ism, it is not some organized movement with a concrete agenda and manifesto.

Yeah...unlike the Evolution movement, right?

The "agenda" is God's Word and the spreading of that Word and the Gift of Salvation...and yes the showing of how evolution doesn't add up- no matter how many years you give it.

 

[Vance]

There is no evolution "movement", it is just a scientific theory, like the theory of gravity.

And, yes, the agenda for all Christians should be spreading the Word of God and the Gift of Salvation. Since evolution does not contradict the true message of Salvation, why in the world would you tie a belief in that Message to a belief in a young earth and the absolute impossibility of evolution? Why would the point even come up?

 

[Dutchunter]

There is no evolution "movement", it is just a scientific theory, like the theory of gravity.

And, yes, the agenda for all Christians should be spreading the Word of God and the Gift of Salvation. Since evolution does not contradict the true message of Salvation, why in the world would you tie a belief in that Message to a belief in a young earth and the absolute impossibility of evolution? Why would the point even come up?

So explain to me why it's pushed so hard if it's just a THEORY. Why even after frauds are discovered etc etc etc that it still gets PUSHED? It sure IS a movement with an agenda.

You are the one who raised the point the way you did- my conscience isn't bothering me one bit.

 

[Vance]

Please tell me what you think a scientific theory is. This is important since I am positive you don't have any understanding of how science works.

Do we abandon Christianity when we find frauds acting in the name of our religion (which happens every day)?

 

[notto]

So explain to me why it's pushed so hard if it's just a THEORY. Why even after frauds are discovered etc etc etc that it still gets PUSHED? It sure IS a movement with an agenda.

You are the one who raised the point the way you did- my conscience isn't bothering me one bit.

From AIG's "Arguments we think creationists should not use"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

‘Evolution is just a theory.’ What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye-Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin-Landau/Verwey-Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

Of course, particles-to-people evolution is a strawman of evolutionary theory as well. AIG should add that to the list.

 

[Dutchunter]

Hey thanks...but as both of your posts confirm you do understand what I mean by "theory". In fact I just posted once again about the difference between a theory that "works" and one that isn't proven yet. Particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture seems a little long. Fairy tale maybe? I'll have to think of a better term.

And since you do know what I was getting at Vance..how about responding to my main point.

 

[Vance]

Hey thanks...but as both of your posts confirm you do understand what I mean by "theory". In fact I just posted once again about the difference between a theory that "works" and one that isn't proven yet. Particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture seems a little long. Fairy tale maybe? I'll have to think of a better term.

And since you do know what I was getting at Vance..how about responding to my main point.

No, when you ask whether a theory has been proved, you show you don't know what it means. And, if you would like the "substantiation" for the theory, then you can find that here:

www.talkorigins.org


And what is your "main point" that I did not respond to?

 

[Dutchunter]

When you post that our faith is being damaged by the likes of AIG, you show you haven't been reading AIG material. My statement still stands- theory for the average person not worried about being so technical- and you did know what I was getting at- does not = fact.


Why is it pushed so? You claim Creationists- YEC"s have an agenda. So do evolutionists.

 

[notto]

Evolution as a scientific theory has not been falsified. That is what makes it a scientific valid scientific theory (just like all other theories you discuss as 'fact').

There is no graduation for a theory to a fact. Evolution is a theory that is supported by facts and evidence. Theories are supported by facts, they are not facts themselves

 

[Dutchunter]

And I completely disagree with you. It HAS been falsified. It is NOT valid.

 

[Vance]

And I completely disagree with you. It HAS been falsified. It is NOT valid.

OK, then. Show us the specific falsification. Tell us all about it. Remember, we have read all the stuff on AIG.

 

[Dutchunter]

Human evolution. Wasn't that just being discussed in this thread? It was in one of these.....seemed to have ended abruptly though...hmmmm.

Oh wait...maybe I should clarify. I should say it hasn't been proven to be true. Or is it evolutionists haven't proven it false. Darn.

 

[Vance]

You said that evolution has been falsified, and we are waiting for the evidence that falsifies it. That is all.

Remember, science does not prove things, it attempts to falsify them. When it can't falsify something after enough attempts and over enough time, it gains greater and greater acceptance as a theory for how things happen. It is never "proved". Just as the theory of gravity or germ theory has never been "proved". Science does not set out to prove it, only to see whether it can be falsified.

Evolution has not been falsified despite 150 years of attempts to do so. If you have that falsification and it holds water, I will alert the media.

 

[Dutchunter]

I also said it is not valid. There is no evidence of human evolution. Saying we evolved and having no proof to back it up is falsification enough for anyone with half a brain.

 

[Vance]

Wrong on both accounts. We do have evidence of human evolution. Tons of it. Again, check out this site:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

It even has a list of Creationist arguments and responses.

Also, a lack of proof is not a falsification. Even AIG accepts that evolution happens. They accept the mechanics of evolution: natural selection, mutation, change, etc. They accept it all. The ONLY difference is that they believe this process can not extend on to what they call "macro" evolution. The problem is that they never adequately explain exactly why the process would continue on to a macro level. Since the process, given enough time and enough environmental pressures, would create however much change is needed, it is up to AIG to set out exactly what the "brake" in the system would be to prevent that degree of change.

 

[notto]

I also said it is not valid. There is no evidence of human evolution. Saying we evolved and having no proof to back it up is falsification enough for anyone with half a brain.

99.9% of practicing biologist disagree with you. Your suggestion that these educated individuals have 'half a brain' is unfounded.

 

[Dutchunter]

Yeah..it must really be quite some proof if you didn't just post it in your prior response. The skulls I've already dealt with.

And since you're just going to post a link to countless other links....I'll do the same.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/anthropology.asp

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter10.php