Theistic Evolution - What is it?

[Chi_Cygni]

Are you a Bot?

You are just posting the same thing over and over.

No - AIG doesn't have plenty of scientists working for them.

I feel a little sorry for you, because you have swallowed their story and you don't even know it passed your lips.

 

[Vance]

Dutch, the $250,000.00 is a fraud since it is based on a false statement of what evolution is all about. If you read his qualifications, you see that he defines the "general theory of evolution" as the belief that:

"these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals)"

Well, this is not the "general theory" of anything, much less evolution. First of all, evolution says nothing about whether God was involved, so he is wrong from the very first sentence. Next, 1, 2 and 3 have nothing to do with evolution at all. Number 4 is something that evolution does not say. Only 5 has anything to do with evolution at all.

But what he is asking is for scientists to prove that ALL these things happened, and that they happened *without God*. Since it is impossible to prove whether God did or did not have anything to do with it, Hovind knows his money is safe and sound. It would be equally safe if he had asked Creationists to prove that it DID happen from God.

And Hovind doesn't even risk his money on this, he hedges his bet even more. He insists (in another part of his offer) that the applicant prove that the process of evolution (incorrectly stated by him) is the ONLY way the observable phenomenon could have happened. Which, of course, no scientists have ever said and would never say.

In short, he is either deeply misguided about what evolution is (in which case it would be foolish for anyone to listen to his views about evolution) or he is purposefully misleading people.

 

[Dutchunter]

Chi....yes they do. I actually read what they put out. I feel sorry for anyone who's bought and uses the same arguements the non-believers use.

Vance...the talkorigins page I posted addresses what you are doing. And it's why I said it's no wonder you guys don't like certain language. BTW...if says nothing about God being involved then for crying out loud- use some common sense.

 

[Vance]

Evolution does not say that God was involved or that God was NOT involved. It just describes the process that they observe happening and can see that has happened in the past. Science does not, and can not, speculate on whether God was involved, anymore than it can say whether God is involved in the process of photosynthesis or gravity. That is not science's job.

Science explains how a rainbow takes place with refraction, etc. The Bible explains exactly what God wants us to take from that phenomenon. The scientific explanation for a rainbow does nothing to lessen its theological meaning for us.

 

[Dutchunter]

So God was just sitting there doing nothing if He was there, right? I guess it's called "Intelligent Observation"?

Laters.......

 

[Vance]

No, God was involved, of course. He was the creator of all things. Of the entire universe. And the theory of evolution does not say otherwise. Never has, never will.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So God was just sitting there doing nothing if He was there, right? I guess it's called "Intelligent Observation"?

Laters.......

The scientific processes by which the universe came to be are the physical manifestations of the outworking of the creative activity of God.

It's that simple.

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

Forgive me for this but....
AAH! This thread seems to be nothing but a random list of links and repeated ideas which have no true content!

Now, onto the discussion:

I take as as my quote for today: the works and threads of Chi_Cygni

I was involved on another forum in a discussion with someone, who kept throwing out AIG's expert scientific staff. So I did some checking and here they are, in all their glory:

Dr. Weiland - medical doctor
Dr. White - ex chemist/college registrar (no research in 30 years)
Dr. Walker - mechanical engineer
Mr. Tilton - ex Navy - Bob Jones U. grad (eeeeeeeek)
Mr. Stevens - minister
Mr. Sparrow - ex high school teacher
Dr. Silvestru - ex geologist (Romania) (no research I can find)
Mr. Schwartzman - ex zoo keeper
Dr. Safarti - ex chemist (amateur physicist and known fraud)
Mr. Robertson - ex hydrologist, now a minister
Dr. Parker - ex zoologist
Mr. Oard - ex meteorologist
Dr. Mortenson - geology historian now a minister
Dr. Menton - ex anatomist
Ms. McKeever - ? (works with young kids)
Dr. Kruger - ex zoologist (nematodes)
Mr. Kendy - ex air traffic controller
Mr. Jack - ex school teacher
Mr Ham - CEO of AIG - no qualifications
Mr. Fangrad - electronics technician
Dr. Driggers - ex telecommunications
Mr. DeRoos - agricultural science
Mr. Davis - singer/artist (known for fake dinosaur bone fraud in Alaska)
Dr. Catchpole - ex horticulturist
Mr. Berra - ex food science
Mr. Bell - ex high school teacher
Dr. BaumGardner - geophysicist (noted for CPT theory, and his government boss writing a letter stating his computer code has been misused in flood research)
Dr. Batten - ex agriculture
Mr. Bates - ? (no qualifications?)
Mr A. Bates - ex firefighter
Mr. Armstrong - ex marketer

Not exactly the National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society.

This info is from AIG themselves, so I don't know the accuracy but I'll take them at their word.

Not a single physicist, except BaumGardner who has been rebuked by using his computer code to a problem other geophysicists say it isn't applicable for.

Not a single astronomer/astrophysicist/cosmologist - what a surprise

Not a single biologist/molecular biologist/biochemist/paleontologist/archeologist.

A couple of ex chemists and zoologists - none currently working in the field.

Otherwise a collection of laymen with little to no scientific training.

**** Another key point is that almost every single person on this list is employed full time by AIG *****

Their livelihood depends on their maintaining a YEC position. Unlike the academic community where tenure provides academic freedom, I'll hazard a guess that AIG would terminate you pretty quickly if you changed your view, or your research supported mainstream science. Of course their 'research' is fixed from the get go so as to not do this.

Also go to AIG website (www.answersingenesis.org) and read these peoples testimonials.

Several of them specifically say, once I was converted to Christ and YEC I knew I had to look harder at science to back this up (I'm paraphrasing of course.) Thus they looked, and they found it of course because they had set their whole faith to be dependent upon it. Way to go for intellectual integrity.

That is an argument which Cyi_Cygni used, I think it is most fitting for this argument.

Also, when you say that scientists lie, your argument seems to to make much sense. True, people do lie, but why are you specifying that all scientists lie? We are not questioning the fact that there are some (short-lasting) ideas made by frauds and fools, but you are taking specific examples and using them to prove wrong an entire community.

For example, Adolf Hitler was wrong in as much as the slaughtering and the persecution (glavin! *)
Is it right for us to say that all of the German population hate the jewish population.

My point is, despite the fact that some people on this earth are corrupted, it is nonsensical to state that all should be branded with the mark of the fool.

* Reference to The Simpsons, specifically Professor Frink.

BTW...if says nothing about God being involved then for crying out loud- use some common sense.

Hm? Perhaps we are forgetting what science is.

Science is, by nature, an athestic practice in as much as it defines things in terms in which God would not be present to intervene. If science were to state that everything was as it is because "God did it", then the purpose of science is flawed. Science is used to explain the mysteries that are contained in this universe. It is not fact in itself (for example, we can not catch gravity, we can only observe its effects), but it is a process which takes facts and puts them in a coherent order.

For example, you have a cookie on your desk. When you return to examine it, you find a rat on your desk, with cookie crumbs stuck in its mouth. The principle of science is to link the cookie and your leaving with the presence of the rat.

AIG and others have demonstrated that evolution is a fairy tale, maintained with misinterpretations, wishfull thinking, bad science, AND lies.

Ironically, that is exactly what we (the evolutionists and what not) are saying about you (including AIG and others). Have you recognized a pattern yet?

On that note, it is equally possible that they are lying as well, in order to cover up the truth that evolutionists have presented with their own brand of "misinterpretations, wishful thinking, bad science, AND lies". Just an interesting thought.

So God was just sitting there doing nothing if He was there, right?

No, no one has stated that, nor would anyone believe it (according to my knowledge, I may be wrong in the instance that we do find someone who believes that God WAS just sitting.)


The problem lies in the fact that you are lacking the understanding of what it means to be truly open-minded. I do not mean that you have to believe what is told to you by evolutionists, but that both sources are human in nature. Thus, either could be correct, for both are taking basic facts and making sense of them. Although AIG may quote more from the bible, they are still a human source. To count them as infalliable and then to state that all scientists are is a statement of blissful ignorance. I suggest you listen to what they have to say (as in the people you have been arguing with), even if you do not agree with them.

Chi....yes they do. I actually read what they put out. I feel sorry for anyone who's bought and uses the same arguements the non-believers use.

Being a believer or not has little to do with fact in this instance. Non-believer or not, we are arguing on the basic principles of biology, and not of God, so the idea that being a non-believer having an impact is nonsensical. Unless of course, you are willing to state that all non-believers lie and are completely misguided on all things as well as religion.

 

[Vance]

Agreed, except that I believe science is non-religious, not atheistic. They do not deny a supernatural being, they simply can not analyze it or any phenomenon outside the "natural". As such, they have to explain things as they are *in the absence of a supernatural intervention*. Thus, they can say "it is scientifically impossible for a person to be raised from the dead" but they would not say that it is impossible that anyone *was* raised from the dead, since this statement would be making a statement about a possible supernatural activity which science can not analyze.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Unfortunately, we lack the appropriate word.

Really, in the same way as we have:

moral - amoral - immoral

We could do with

theistic - atheistic - intheistic

If we did, then science would indeed be atheistic - in the same way that it is amoral because it does not address moral issues, it is atheistic because it does not address the existence of God.

 

[Vance]

But atheism is particularly a belief that God does NOT exist, which science does not say. It just doesn't address the issue anymore than a construction worker can be expected to. It is not in his job description.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Read my post again Vance - I'm saying that if -theistic followed the same rules as -moral, then science would be atheistic.

It is non-theistic - it isn't concerned with the existence or otherwise of God. There's isn't a single word for this.

 

[Vance]

Ah, yes, gotcha.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

Look for the essay "Evolutionary Theology Comes of Age" at http://www.metanexus.net

Also here: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4650_statements_from_religious_orga_3_13_2001.asp

And
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_world2.htm
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html

But basically, theistic evolution is the belief that science discovers the material processes that God used to create.

 

[lucaspa]

So God was just sitting there doing nothing if He was there, right? I guess it's called "Intelligent Observation"?

Laters.......

No. You need to get rid of the atheistic belief at the center of creationism. You are thinking that 'natural' = without God. That's false.

Here, take these three statements and see if they don't help you understand what God was doing:

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

"A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed. Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God." Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, I, 2-3, 1726, quoted in CC Gillespie, Genesis and Geology, 1959.

 

[lucaspa]

Read my post again Vance - I'm saying that if -theistic followed the same rules as -moral, then science would be atheistic.

It is non-theistic - it isn't concerned with the existence or otherwise of God. There's isn't a single word for this.

Karl, science is more described as "agnostic". Science is concerned with the existence or otherwise of deity. Until we answer that question, our understanding of the physical universe will be incomplete. It's more that science is unable to determine the existence or otherwise of deity. Methodological materialism prevents science from directly testing for deity.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'm not totally happy with "agnostic" either - agnostic is itself a position, that the existence of God and His nature cannot be known.

Scientists can be atheistic, theistic, deistic, agnostic, pantheistic, whatever. Science can only be science. I suppose, essentially, there is no such thing as theistic evolution. There are, however, theistic evolutionists.