Theistic Evolution - what is it?

[Knowledge3]

. . .

 

[juvenissun]

. . .

.... a mistake.

 

[lemmings]

Those who call themselves theistic evolutionists have a tendency to also refer to themselves with theistic gravitationists.

 

[sfs]

Someone who believes in theistic evolution accepts evolution as a pretty accurate description of the history of life while also believing in God. That's all.

 

[LuciusJulius]

Basically, a theistic evolutionist is a Christian who believes that God used evolution to accomplish the creation of life, rather than life coming about in six days.

I personally literally believe that God did indeed create the universe in six days. I accept it as truth, why should I not? It is of the Holy Scriptures; God's word.

 

[NathanCGreen]

I personally literally believe that God did indeed create the universe in six days. I accept it as truth, why should I not? It is of the Holy Scriptures; God's word.

Amen Lucius! It's good to see some truly intelligent people here that take God at His word.

 

[headhoncho]

Basically, a theistic evolutionist is a Christian who believes that God used evolution to accomplish the creation of life, rather than life coming about in six days.

I personally literally believe that God did indeed create the universe in six days. I accept it as truth, why should I not? It is of the Holy Scriptures; God's word.

Hi LJ, how can God have " days " ? God exists only in here and now,
" days " are only prophetic tools.
" Six days " or " 6000 years " is the Creation through the Word/Christ,
John 1:1-5, after that's over, Genesis 2:3, there is no more what it used
to be, Isaiah 65:17

 

[random_guy]

Those who call themselves theistic evolutionists have a tendency to also refer to themselves with theistic gravitationists.

This is probably the best answer. I don't consider myself a theistic evolutionist any more than I consider myself a theistic gravitationist or theistic mathematician.

Basically, it boils down to this. You have people that accept science and the scientific method as a way to explain natural phenomenon in the world, and you have people that don't accept science and the scientific method.

That's the difference between Creationists and other people. Of course, reasons for Creationists not accepting science vary, but mostly, it seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what science is. That's why you'll have a lot of Creationists say that a scientific field disproves God if it is correct. Science can't disprove God, nor say anything about God. Science is a method to study the natural world, and can say nothing about the supernatural.

 

[MrSnow]

I heard a great explanation of this once. I'll put it in my own words:

Scenario 1

Person A - Why is the water boiling?
Person B - Because I intend to make tea for the quests whom I'll be entertaining shortly.

Scenario 2
Person A - Why is the water boiling?
Person B - As heat is added to water, both the temperature and entropy rise until the water becomes a saturated liquid. Since atmospheric pressure at sea level is about 30'ish psi, its saturation temperature is about 212F. As the stove continues to add heat, the entropy of the water increases without an increase in temperature. As you follow the line across the T/S curve, you see the water moving from the point of "saturated liquid" to "wet vapor". And if the pot were pressure tight, you could follow the T/S curve until you reached the "saturated steam" point. But since the pot is not pressure tight, the vapor escapes the system causing the water level to drop in the pot.

TE's believe that Genesis 1 is an example of Scenario 1.

 

[NathanCGreen]

This is probably the best answer. I don't consider myself a theistic evolutionist any more than I consider myself a theistic gravitationist or theistic mathematician.

Nice one. Trying to lump evolution in with actual science like gravitation and mathematics to give it more credence... typical.

That's the difference between Creationists and other people. Of course, reasons for Creationists not accepting science vary, but mostly, it seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what science is.

What!? How can you say such a thing with a straight face? Creationists DO NOT reject science. We just reject lies, or at least some of us do. I think you are the one who misunderstands what science is. You should replace the word 'science' in the above quote with 'evolution'... since you seem to think that they are the same thing...

 

[Tinker Grey]

You really are a very rude person, NathanCGreen.

 

[Mallon]

What!? How can you say such a thing with a straight face? Creationists DO NOT reject science.

Sure they do. They may not reject all of science, but they certainly reject that which they feel conflicts with their preferred interpretation of the Bible. Evolution, like all science, is about connecting dots using natural explanations. If we plot organismal diversity against time, evolutionary theory posits a way we can connect these seemingly disparate data points with reference to descent with modification. Really, the approach to the two graphs below is the same. The only thing that differs are the axis labels.

Special creationists, on the other hand, seek to disconnect those data points in order to leave room for God to perform a few miracles. However you cut it, this is a rejection of basic science. No one in their right mind would hesitate to draw the linear regression line depicted below, yet this is what special creationists do every day... not because they care about good science, but because they care to protect a particular concordist interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Mick116]

A "theistic evolutionist" (many would prefer the designation "evolutionary creationist"), is a Christian (or non-Christian theist) that finds value in the scientific theory of evolution. Someone who gets excited by God's word revealed in nature, as well as that revealed in scripture.

More often than not, he or she is one who has asked the hard questions, whose faith has been refined and strengthened through tribulations of personal doubt and uncertainty. None would claim to have all the answers, and most are content with the fact that there are things in this world which we are unable to explain (though this seldom stifles the desire to diligently seek explanations). "Theistic evolutionists" are comfortable with mystery and doubt, despite (or therefore) recognising the pricelessness of faith.

A theistic evolutionist finds beauty in God's creation, which is called "very good" by our scriptures. We believe in an ever-present God who sustains the universe, and who has reconciled creation to himself. We most often possess a burning desire to share the wonders of God's creation with all who would listen, for His glory.

We have a deep love of the scriptures, interpreted thoughtfully and in context. We do not dessicate its meaning by inserting a scientific inerrancy that we do not feel belongs to the text.

Finally, as Christian evolutionists, we seek what all Christ-followers seek, to be faithful to the teachings of our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus the Christ.

 

[sfs]

Nice one. Trying to lump evolution in with actual science like gravitation and mathematics to give it more credence... typical.

Evolution gets lumped in with gravitation and other sciences because it is science, as everyone in the scientific community recognizes. Universities, professional organizations, funding agencies, philosophers and historians of science, professional journals, the National Academy of Sciences and the Library of Congress all think evolution is a part of science. You don't. Whom do you think I should believe?

Oh, and mathematics isn't a science.

What!? How can you say such a thing with a straight face? Creationists DO NOT reject science. We just reject lies, or at least some of us do. I think you are the one who misunderstands what science is. You should replace the word 'science' in the above quote with 'evolution'... since you seem to think that they are the same thing...

The statement was accurate. Creationists routinely reject scientific reasoning, ignore scientific data and virtually never carry out scientific tests of their hypotheses. One absolute no-no in science is deciding in advance what the answer is going to be. But that is standard procedure for creationism.

 

[Molal]

Nice one. Trying to lump evolution in with actual science like gravitation and mathematics to give it more credence... typical.



What!? How can you say such a thing with a straight face? Creationists DO NOT reject science. We just reject lies, or at least some of us do. I think you are the one who misunderstands what science is. You should replace the word 'science' in the above quote with 'evolution'... since you seem to think that they are the same thing...

You labor under the misunderstanding that evolution is not science. The theory of evolution probably has more evidence than the theory of gravity, the atomic theory and germ theory combined.

Creationist do reject science, this is evidenced in your statement about evolution.

 

[random_guy]

Nice one. Trying to lump evolution in with actual science like gravitation and mathematics to give it more credence... typical.

Well, mathematics isn't science, but a source of knowledge. However, I lump it all together because I accept science just as I accept mathematics. And regardless of my religious views, I accept both as a valid source of knowledge.

What!? How can you say such a thing with a straight face? Creationists DO NOT reject science. We just reject lies, or at least some of us do. I think you are the one who misunderstands what science is. You should replace the word 'science' in the above quote with 'evolution'... since you seem to think that they are the same thing...

You just proved me point. Do you accept the scientific method as defined by science? If so, then how can you consider chemistry a science, but biology/geology/etc... not a science? Do you accept the theory of gravity or the theory of disease as valid theories? If so, what separates those theories and the theory of evolution?

I am betting100% you can't give a correct answer why you accept one but not another. I'm sure I'll hear the same reply I get from every other Creationist, it's not repeatable, observable, or it's a "historical" science, as if there's some kind of magical distinction.

However, all that shows is you don't understand what observable, repeatable, or testable is in science. That's why Creationists continue to exclaim evolution isn't scientific, but the rest of the real scientific world (all government scientific organizations, all major private scientific organizations, nearly every university save the 1 or 2 fundy schools, every single scientific journal, etc...) all agree the evolution is scientific.

And who should I believe, people that understand science, or people that don't? I think it's pretty obvious.

 

[NathanCGreen]

Oh, and mathematics isn't a science.

Mathematics is a form of knowledge. Therefore it is science. You must be thinking that science is experimental lab work only...
Oh, and that reminds me... the experiments that have been done to try to prove evolution have been complete failures. Why don't you stop defining all of scientific endeavour with evolution fantasy and change your paradigm to fit the evidence, instead of clinging to a disproven idea?

The statement was accurate. Creationists routinely reject scientific reasoning, ignore scientific data and virtually never carry out scientific tests of their hypotheses. One absolute no-no in science is deciding in advance what the answer is going to be. But that is standard procedure for creationism.

Pah! Show me your 'scientific' data then. Most evos don't even consider that they are wrong in their interpretation of the data. In fact, their entire methods, like the dating techniques, are massively flawed and are ultimately useless.
Scientists have seen the amazing complexity in nature and cannot logically deduce a random process as being the originator of animate and inanimate objects. The belief in evolution therefore is built on (blind) faith.
Creationism comes in and says that there was and is a Designer, who is God, that made all these things... and when it comes to the reason for death, diseases, etc, it all points to man's separation from his Maker and His ways, and God's subsequent curse on His creation. This happened in the past, we can only work with what we have now. Creationism is the only truly logical path to be on.

 

[sfs]

Mathematics is a form of knowledge. Therefore it is science.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to redefine words just because you're feeling cranky.

You must be thinking that science is experimental lab work only...

No, I'm thinking that science is empirical, which mathematics is not. That's how the word is used by scientists, anyway.

Oh, and that reminds me... the experiments that have been done to try to prove evolution have been complete failures. Why don't you stop defining all of scientific endeavour with evolution fantasy and change your paradigm to fit the evidence, instead of clinging to a disproven idea?

Please provide some specifics. Which experiments are you talking about?

Pah! Show me your 'scientific' data then.

Here is a bit of the data. You might also look up threads on endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes. Please tell me what is wrong with these scientific data.

Most evos don't even consider that they are wrong in their interpretation of the data.

I've been asking creationists for years for a creationist interpretation of genetic data. I even wrote to several creationist organizations, asking for their interpretation. For some reason, none of them offered me one. You could be the first: go for it.

In fact, their entire methods, like the dating techniques, are massively flawed and are ultimately useless.

Odd, then, that we're using these massively flawed and useless methods to understand basic biology and combat disease. We're likely to continue to do so, too, until somebody offers a better alternative. Ranting about how deluded we are doesn't count, by the way -- you have to actually deal with the data, not issue thundering denunciations. So get cracking.

 

[Molal]

Mathematics is a form of knowledge. Therefore it is science. You must be thinking that science is experimental lab work only...
Oh, and that reminds me... the experiments that have been done to try to prove evolution have been complete failures. Why don't you stop defining all of scientific endeavour with evolution fantasy and change your paradigm to fit the evidence, instead of clinging to a disproven idea?




Pah! Show me your 'scientific' data then. Most evos don't even consider that they are wrong in their interpretation of the data. In fact, their entire methods, like the dating techniques, are massively flawed and are ultimately useless.
Scientists have seen the amazing complexity in nature and cannot logically deduce a random process as being the originator of animate and inanimate objects. The belief in evolution therefore is built on (blind) faith.
Creationism comes in and says that there was and is a Designer, who is God, that made all these things... and when it comes to the reason for death, diseases, etc, it all points to man's separation from his Maker and His ways, and God's subsequent curse on His creation. This happened in the past, we can only work with what we have now. Creationism is the only truly logical path to be on.

Provide evidence for the supposed flaws in dating techniques.

Provide evidence to suggest that evolution is built on blind faith.

Provide evidence for a designer.

When I ask for evidence I want the same level of data that we provide to you - peer reviewed, published data.

Go for it.....

 

[NathanCGreen]

You just proved me point. Do you accept the scientific method as defined by science? If so, then how can you consider chemistry a science, but biology/geology/etc... not a science?

What are you talking about!? Where did you get the idea that I disregard biology and geology as sciences, but not chemistry? Evolution is just a philosophy that is intertwined into these areas, ignoring all evidence which annihilates it in the process.

Do you accept the theory of gravity or the theory of disease as valid theories? If so, what separates those theories and the theory of evolution?

What!? Again! Oh boy..
Everyone knows that gravity is a reality... from experience. But, there are differing theories of how gravity works. So you cannot reasonably say 'the theory of gravity'. You could say, 'the prevailing theory' however. What about 'the theory of disease'? Once again, there are differing views on its origin, etc.
The 'theory' of evolution that tries to explain how things got started has already been debunked, for example, its mathematical impossibility.
So stop wasting time and effort on a faulty theory and build another one.

I am betting100% you can't give a correct answer why you accept one but not another.

Not withstanding your absurd argument, how are you going to decide if my answer is correct or not?

However, all that shows is you don't understand what observable, repeatable, or testable is in science. That's why Creationists continue to exclaim evolution isn't scientific, but the rest of the real scientific world (all government scientific organizations, all major private scientific organizations, nearly every university save the 1 or 2 fundy schools, every single scientific journal, etc...) all agree the evolution is scientific.

You sound like a typical misguided follower of Kabbalic evolutionism. All of your arguments are empty. You simply claim that I don't know what science is, yet you must, right? Then show us all a testable, observable, repeatable experiment that proves the evolution of all organisms. Come on! What is observable that will prove evolution? Huh? What is repeatable? I think we all understand what those terms mean. However, can you show us evidence for evolution over creation using these methods? I didn't think so.

And who should I believe, people that understand science, or people that don't? I think it's pretty obvious.

People who understand science? Don't you mean those who claim to understand evolution? The two are NOT synonymous.

You should believe God, not men. Use your intelligence, don't just follow the crowd. They could be wrong, you know... Ever heard of what happened to the Antedeluvians?