Theistic evolutionists against Atheistic evolutionists

[Notedstrangeperson]

(Once again, sorry about the huge OP )

A little while ago I made a thread asking whether theistic evolutionists are doing enough to defend Christianity (link). I don't think we are.

I don't often quote creationists websites - especially when they claim belief in evolution is equal to atheism - but this article from the Apologetics Press shows just how virulently evolution is being used to promote an atheist agenda.

(The majority of the quotes listed come from "In Place of God?", a New Scientist article written in 2006 by Michael Brooks.)

Cosmologist Steven Weinberg was first to address the question, “Should science do away with religion?” He responded with an unequivocal “yes,” saying: “The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion.... Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization” (p. 9, emp. added). Since scientists at the symposium used the terms “religion” and “God” interchangeably, Weinberg in essence was saying that ridding God from the world would be one of science’s greatest achievements. He seemed so certain that scientists could achieve this goal that he actually admitted he would “miss it once it was gone” (p. 9). How were Weinberg’s comments received, you might ask? According to attendee Michael Brooks, he received “a rapturous response” (p. 9), before being heavily criticized by some, such as Richard Dawkins, surprisingly enough, “for not being tough enough on religion” (p. 9).
...
Dr. Dennett and his band of evolutionary guerrillas are serious about teaching evolution at the “earliest opportunity.” It can start with what parents perceive as “innocent” pop-up books, and continue into elementary school, middle school, and high school. Then, generally with more fervor than ever before, many evolutionary college professors make it their mission to verbally beat God out of their students. Sometime ago a gentleman visited one of our creation/evolution seminars. He had attended a well-known university in the southeastern United States. He recounted how he entered one of his science classes at the beginning of the semester, and heard his professor ask the class to stand up if they believed in God. Seven individuals stood up. The professor then went on to say that by the end of the semester not one of them would stand up when he asked that question. Sure enough, toward the end of the semester the professor posed the question again, “How many of you believe in God?” Only one student stood up.
​

--------------------------------------------------------

Apologetics Press says that the only way to answer this "war" is by indoctrinating children with Creationism. And we all know how successful that ususally is ...

One user in my previous thread said that the problem is that many christian scientists have a good knowledge of biology, and many christian apologists have a good knowledge of theology ... but not that many have both. So is there is a better way for theistic evolutionists to argue against this atheist agenda?

A few ideas:

1. A lot of atheists - particularly the dogmatic variety - claim that religion wants people to stay ignorant and that there were no scientific developments when religion was at it's height during the so-called "Dark Ages". We can prove this is nonsense.

• After the fall of the Roman Empire many Christians - like Augustine and Bede - brought education to Europe.
• Many of our modern ideas on evolution have their origins in Christian thought. Linnaeus' classification system and the "Great chain of being" both preceed Darwin's tree of life.
• The concept that the world and everything in it works like a giant machine was originally developed by ancient Greeks but later taken up by Western Christians. It's linked directly to monotheism, rather than other forms of religious beliefs.

2. Point out the many fallacious arguments atheists use when they claim atheism holds the moral high ground:

• The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is often employed when people point out atheist regimes have killed more people than Christian regimes. Sam Harris in particular is guilty of this.
• Many atheists claim Social Darwinism was a perversion of evolution (and it was) but many ideas that we can "improve" the human race using biology still persist. Suggestions that we should act more like our ape ancestors persist too, although this is highly controversial even among atheists.
• Remember our arguments are against atheism - not evolution.

Any others?

 

[juvenissun]

Theistic evolutionist and atheistic evolutionist both believed in the process of evolution (identical from scientific point of view).

Atheistic evolutionist used evolution to attack theist.

So, the biggest problem of theistic evolutionist is atheist, not creationist.

And I agree with atheists. If one believed in evolution, then there is no way that the person could logically be a theist. (of course, it is still possible if one is willingly compromised to oneself by having a double standards)

 

[sfs]

Theistic evolutionist and atheistic evolutionist both believed in the process of evolution (identical from scientific point of view).

Atheistic evolutionist used evolution to attack theist.

Atheistic evolutionists don't believe in God. Some of them may also attack theists, but by no means all of them.

So, the biggest problem of theistic evolutionist is atheist, not creationist.

Biggest problem in what way? The biggest problem of theistic evolutionists in convincing atheists that Christianity is not idiotic is creationists.

And I agree with atheists. If one believed in evolution, then there is no way that the person could logically be a theist. (of course, it is still possible if one is willingly compromised to oneself by having a double standards)

It is logically impossible to be a theist and accept evolution? That's one of the more ridiculous things I've heard this week. (And how on earth could compromising oneself change that fact? If it's logically impossible to hold both views, it's logically impossible. Perhaps you shouldn't be lecturing others on logic.)

 

[juvenissun]

It is logically impossible to be a theist and accept evolution? That's one of the more ridiculous things I've heard this week. (And how on earth could compromising oneself change that fact? If it's logically impossible to hold both views, it's logically impossible. Perhaps you shouldn't be lecturing others on logic.)

OK, let's do this one more time, see what will happen:

Evolution suggested that human evolved from chimp.
The Bible says that human is created by God.

How could these two not be in conflict to each other?

 

[sfs]

OK, let's do this one more time, see what will happen:

Evolution suggested that human evolved from chimp.
The Bible says that human is created by God.

How could these two not be in conflict to each other?

A) Who said anything about the Bible? You said theism and evolution were logically incompatible. It's quite possible to be a theist and think that the Bible is wrong in almost everything it says.
B) Do you really not know the answer? An evolutionary Christian would say that God created humans by means of evolution. In fact, that's what we do say, and have been telling you for years.

So by all means, try this one more time.

 

[juvenissun]

A) Who said anything about the Bible? You said theism and evolution were logically incompatible. It's quite possible to be a theist and think that the Bible is wrong in almost everything it says.
B) Do you really not know the answer? An evolutionary Christian would say that God created humans by means of evolution. In fact, that's what we do say, and have been telling you for years.

So by all means, try this one more time.

A) OK, not use the Bible. Then tell me ONE theological system which supports the evolutional origin of human being. In fact, I know none.

B) God creates human by His breath (Oh, that beautiful breath. It beats all the deep studies of evolution), not by evolution. This is what the Bible says. It has nothing to do with evolution.

Compromise, compromise. TE is all about compromise and double standard. If I believed in evolution, I would rather be an atheist. At least, they are logically consistent.

 

[sfs]

A) OK, not use the Bible. Then tell me ONE theological system which supports the evolutional origin of human being. In fact, I know none.

So you're unfamiliar with the theological system(s) of the Roman Catholic church? And the Anglican churches? And the Orthodox churches? And most Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists and many Baptists? Perhaps you should learn more about the breadth of Christian theology.

B) God creates human by His breath (Oh, that beautiful breath. It beats all the deep studies of evolution), not by evolution. This is what the Bible says. It has nothing to do with evolution.

Well, yes -- if you think Genesis is an accurate, literal, mechanistic account of the creation of humans, then there is a problem with evolution. If you don't (and I don't see how anyone can read Genesis and think that it is an historical account), then there's no problem at all. Yes, God created humans by breathing life into them, and yes, he did it by means of evolution.

Compromise, compromise. TE is all about compromise and double standard. If I believed in evolution, I would rather be an atheist. At least, they are logically consistent.

Well, at least it's nice to see which is more important to you, your faith in God or your creationism.

 

[juvenissun]

So you're unfamiliar with the theological system(s) of the Roman Catholic church? And the Anglican churches? And the Orthodox churches? And most Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists and many Baptists? Perhaps you should learn more about the breadth of Christian theology.


Well, yes -- if you think Genesis is an accurate, literal, mechanistic account of the creation of humans, then there is a problem with evolution. If you don't (and I don't see how anyone can read Genesis and think that it is an historical account), then there's no problem at all. Yes, God created humans by breathing life into them, and yes, he did it by means of evolution.


Well, at least it's nice to see which is more important to you, your faith in God or your creationism.

Evolution can not explain what the breath of God is. There is no way that God would use evolution to bring up His breath. The breath of God gives human much more than evolution could ever discover. Yes, without the breath of God, human could be just another animal.

I don't know (never bothered to find out) if those denominations accepted evolution as the only origin of human being. I believe they don't. But if they do, then they are all compromised (due to scientific ignorance). This is not a new feature to a church any more today.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Compromise, compromise. TE is all about compromise and double standard. If I believed in evolution, I would rather be an atheist. At least, they are logically consistent.

So as well as arguing against atheists who are trying to discredit our religion, I have to argue against you too? Your argument gives more support to atheism than evolution does.

And compromise? What do you think the thread title means?

 

[sfs]

Evolution can not explain what the breath of God is. There is no way that God would use evolution to bring up His breath.

Juvie, where the heck do you get off telling God how he is allowed to create?

I don't know (never bothered to find out) if those denominations accepted evolution as the only origin of human being. I believe they don't. But if they do, then they are all compromised (due to scientific ignorance). This is not a new feature to a church any more today.

Many of them think God did something special, either gradually or all at once, to impart a spiritual nature to humans. Many don't. Either way, they still recognize that humans are the product of evolution. (And if you didn't know anything about the theology of the vast majority of Christians, why did you bring it up -- did you just assume that everyone agrees with you?) As for scientific ignorance, you're in no position to be judging others on their knowledge of evolution.

 

[Keachian]

As was brought up in the other thread (at least I think it was) the main thing to come up against is the definition of "naturalism" creationists, atheists and deists alike seem to want the same definition, however I'm of the opinion that all theists (creationists included) should have the same one, that is the work of God in coherent and repeatable ways.

 

[juvenissun]

Juvie, where the heck do you get off telling God how he is allowed to create?


Many of them think God did something special, either gradually or all at once, to impart a spiritual nature to humans. Many don't. Either way, they still recognize that humans are the product of evolution. (And if you didn't know anything about the theology of the vast majority of Christians, why did you bring it up -- did you just assume that everyone agrees with you?) As for scientific ignorance, you're in no position to be judging others on their knowledge of evolution.

Negative argument and personal criticism do not increase understanding. You are a Ph.D.. You should know how to make positive argument. Don't lower yourself to the same level as those shameless evolutionists are in the C&E forum.

I am not telling God how to create. I am trying to understand. God creates animals (by clay or not?) without giving them His breath. If human had the same origin as animals, then why bother with the "breath"? As a Christian scientist, and if you are able, you MUST address the scientific meaning of the magic breath of God.

I am not a geneticist, but my interpretation is that the breath gives everything about human that evolution can not explain. For example, the degree of intelligence, the sense of morality, etc. This kind of spiritual nature can NEVER be evolved.

As for those denominations that "accepted" evolution as human origin, I need to evaluate their specific statement on this matter to understand their positions. Without doing that, you can say yours and I can say mine.

 

[juvenissun]

As was brought up in the other thread (at least I think it was) the main thing to come up against is the definition of "naturalism" creationists, atheists and deists alike seem to want the same definition, however I'm of the opinion that all theists (creationists included) should have the same one, that is the work of God in coherent and repeatable ways.

No. I don't think God will ever make another life form such as human. This is the consistent doctrine from the beginning to the end in the Bible. Indirectly, that disproved the evolution origin of human.

 

[juvenissun]

So as well as arguing against atheists who are trying to discredit our religion, I have to argue against you too? Your argument gives more support to atheism than evolution does.

And compromise? What do you think the thread title means?

I am not a biologist. But for the theology sake, I want to understand evolution. So far, I certainly can argue that there are more unknowns than knowns in the theory of evolution. And for the sake of education, I like to argue on evolution with both atheist and theist. Because I don't see any difference in the evolution theory between these two groups. Science is science, there is no difference between theistic science and atheistic science. (is this the answer to your OP?)

So, if you are a TE, I would argue evolution with you the same way as I will do to atheists. Of course, the difference is that I know you will be saved. But I believe your earthly work on the promotion of evolution (not the study of science) will be burned to ashes.

 

[sfs]

Negative argument and personal criticism do not increase understanding.

Right. So you'd better speak sternly to that guy who said things like "Compromise, compromise. TE is all about compromise and double standard." I think the same guy said "If one believed in evolution, then there is no way that the person could logically be a theist. (of course, it is still possible if one is willingly compromised to oneself by having a double standards)." Do you have any idea who that person might be?

You are a Ph.D.. You should know how to make positive argument. Don't lower yourself to the same level as those shameless evolutionists are in the C&E forum.

Let me get this straight: you enter this thread and announce that I am a) illogical, b) a compromising Christian and c) scientifically ignorant. And I'm to blame for pointing out that you don't know enough to make these accusations? Get a grip.

I am not telling God how to create. I am trying to understand.

Was it not you who wrote, "There is no way that God would use evolution to bring up His breath." That sure sounds like you've decided what mechanisms are appropriate for God to have used.

God creates animals (by clay or not?) without giving them His breath. If human had the same origin as animals, then why bother with the "breath"? As a Christian scientist, and if you are able, you MUST address the scientific meaning of the magic breath of God.

Humans have an ability to reflect on their own actions, and to interact with God, in a way that is fundamentally different from other animals. Why does the "breath of God" have to mean anything more than this, or say anything at all about the mechanisms of creation?

I am not a geneticist, but my interpretation is that the breath gives everything about human that evolution can not explain. For example, the degree of intelligence, the sense of morality, etc. This kind of spiritual nature can NEVER be evolved.

Intelligence certainly seems to be genetic, and clearly increased gradually over millions of year; I think it quite likely that the same is true of the impulse toward morality as well. What's your evidence that these things haven't evolved?

As for those denominations that "accepted" evolution as human origin, I need to evaluate their specific statement on this matter to understand their positions. Without doing that, you can say yours and I can say mine.

I have a much better idea: when we don't know what we're talking about, and don't understand the positions of other Christians, we don't leap in and pronounce judgment.

 

[juvenissun]

Right. So you'd better speak sternly to that guy who said things like "Compromise, compromise. TE is all about compromise and double standard." I think the same guy said "If one believed in evolution, then there is no way that the person could logically be a theist. (of course, it is still possible if one is willingly compromised to oneself by having a double standards)." Do you have any idea who that person might be?


Let me get this straight: you enter this thread and announce that I am a) illogical, b) a compromising Christian and c) scientifically ignorant. And I'm to blame for pointing out that you don't know enough to make these accusations? Get a grip.

I like your argument. This is what I mean a positive one.

It did not occurred to me that my general description can be applied personally (obviously it does). However, strictly speaking, among your a), b) and c), the c) does not apply. It is about the church denomination and church authority, and is not about you.

But, a) and b) might still apply. However, you should not take it as a general qualifier to you. Both are specific qualifier to the faith of TE. In that case, yes, that would include you. And that is what we should debate about.

 

[juvenissun]

I have a much better idea: when we don't know what we're talking about, and don't understand the positions of other Christians, we don't leap in and pronounce judgment.

We, everyone, are making judgement every minute and all the time. This is what I called a temporary judgement. If I speak it up, then it is not fair for you to say that I made my judgement (conclusion). Because it could be changed in the next minute, depends on your argument.

So you classified my argument as a judgement, is not justified. Nevertheless, just follow your terminology, I made my judgement. You can make your anti-judgement. And I will be happily to go along.

 

[juvenissun]

Intelligence certainly seems to be genetic, and clearly increased gradually over millions of year; I think it quite likely that the same is true of the impulse toward morality as well. What's your evidence that these things haven't evolved?

This is, in fact, the central point of the problem.

I don't see at all on the evolutional change of intelligence because I see the unmeasurable huge gap in the level of intelligence. Precisely speaking, it is not only the intelligence. The moral and other spiritual characters (like the art) of human are simply non-existent among animals.

Nobody will take what makes a human human as an evolved product.

 

[Keachian]

No. I don't think God will ever make another life form such as human. This is the consistent doctrine from the beginning to the end in the Bible. Indirectly, that disproved the evolution origin of human.

... that's not what I was talking about at all, it is both miraculous and gracious that God created us and that doesn't contradict evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

... that's not what I was talking about at all, it is both miraculous and gracious that God created us and that doesn't contradict evolution.

When you say the word evolution, I think about science. And the nature of miracle and grace is absolutely not scientific.

I don't see how could you reconcile these two.