Theistic Evolutionists vs. Abiogenesis

[hordeprime]

Let me sum up the Theistic Evolutionist's position, just to make sure I know what I'm talking about:

The T.E. considers science as valuable as scripture. T.E.'s agree that evolution is the explanation for how existing life develops on Earth based on the laws of probability, chemistry, and biology as designated by the universe's creator; a notion that is not contrary to but complementary to the belief in God.

Yes?

Ok. Now abiogenesis is the scientific theory that organic matter can develop from inorganic matter-a theory that is separate from evolution.

My question is this: do Theistic Evolutionists believe that abiogenesis is a possible and most likely actual process by which life originally arose from inorganic matter (based on the laws of probability, chemistry, and biology as designated by the universe's creator)?

Or do TE's consider the origins of organic life to be a purely "supernatural" event, one that science will not or cannot produce a theory for?

In summary: Do TE's believe in abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis: Yay? Nay? or Undecided?

 

[mikeynov]

I would suspect you'll get answers both ways.

Special creation might be favored by some (who view scripture as implying such an event, literally), wheras others might accept that abiogenesis is 'how' God created life.

I always thought that, if I did ever believe in God, it'd make MUCH more sense to me for God to be the type of superbeing who implements a universe which would naturally lead to his goals, instead of creating one that's not quite up to the task and arbitrarily intervening to set things in motion.

 

[Logic]

That seems more like the spinoza God than a christian God, which is more of just harmony among nature than an actual deity.

 

[gluadys]

Or do TE's consider the origins of organic life to be a purely "supernatural" event, one that science will not or cannot produce a theory for?

In summary: Do TE's believe in abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis: Yay? Nay? or Undecided?

I have no problem with the possibility that God engineered abiogenesis through the use of natural forces.

Nor do I have a problem with the possibility it may have required a super-natural miracle.

I don't think it makes any difference one way or the other as far as faith in creation is concerned.

 

[Vance]

Speaking only for myself as a Theistic Evolutionist, I would not agree with your first proposition that science is as valuable as Scripture. I do believe, however, that science, as the study of God's Creation, plays a very important role in learning about the nature of God, and the truths we find from the study of God's Creation can, and should, be used to inform our understanding of Scripture when possible. And I agree with the quote in Lucaspa's sig which says that when good science conflicts with our interpretation of Scripture, it is usually our interpretation that is the problem.

Having said all of that, I agree basically with Gluadys. I think whatever happened was ultimately initiated and designed by God, and all that has happened has been within the framework created by God (or, possibly even within the framework *of* God). While I definitely read the Genesis text non-literally, I do not rule out the possibility that the degree of direct action described in the text could be more than just metaphorical or poetic, but actually indicate that He did more that just design the clockwork and then set it spinning.

He could definitely have created a universe which would run without further intervention and meet every one of His goals and plans. He IS God, after all. So, I do not discount this as a possibility. But, since I do believe that He has chosen to involve Himself in the daily workings of His Creation at numerous times, past and present (not least of which by visting us personally circa 3 to 36 AD), I have no particular reason to think He would not have chosen (for whatever reason) to involve Himself at the beginning of life. This is NOT a God of the Gaps position, since I do not believe that He *must* have, based on a current lack of evidence, only that His doing so would be entirely in the character of God as I perceive Him.

 

[stray bullet]

Yep, I think abiogenesis is almost certainly the method used.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Assuredly. It's the way God does things, in the main.

 

[meebs]

Let me sum up the Theistic Evolutionist's position, just to make sure I know what I'm talking about:

The T.E. considers science as valuable as scripture. T.E.'s agree that evolution is the explanation for how existing life develops on Earth based on the laws of probability, chemistry, and biology as designated by the universe's creator; a notion that is not contrary to but complementary to the belief in God.

Yes?

Ok. Now abiogenesis is the scientific theory that organic matter can develop from inorganic matter-a theory that is separate from evolution.

My question is this: do Theistic Evolutionists believe that abiogenesis is a possible and most likely actual process by which life originally arose from inorganic matter (based on the laws of probability, chemistry, and biology as designated by the universe's creator)?

Or do TE's consider the origins of organic life to be a purely "supernatural" event, one that science will not or cannot produce a theory for?

In summary: Do TE's believe in abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis: Yay? Nay? or Undecided?

Strangely enough this is the first i heard of this theory! i guess that i can look at this from the standpoint that life started as single cells, before that were the amino acids, which are protiens from which life formed, the protiens which are made of basic elements in the long run. however, what started this process? my belief? GOD!! i beleive that the the big bang (or however the universe started) is one big supernatural event. maybe science will one day explain it. ok, im undecided i will be reading more on the subject. sorry i was just sounding out my ideas

 

[w81minit]

Let me sum up the Theistic Evolutionist's position, just to make sure I know what I'm talking about:

The T.E. considers science as valuable as scripture. T.E.'s agree that evolution is the explanation for how existing life develops on Earth based on the laws of probability, chemistry, and biology as designated by the universe's creator; a notion that is not contrary to but complementary to the belief in God.

Yes?

Ok. Now abiogenesis is the scientific theory that organic matter can develop from inorganic matter-a theory that is separate from evolution.

My question is this: do Theistic Evolutionists believe that abiogenesis is a possible and most likely actual process by which life originally arose from inorganic matter (based on the laws of probability, chemistry, and biology as designated by the universe's creator)?

Or do TE's consider the origins of organic life to be a purely "supernatural" event, one that science will not or cannot produce a theory for?

In summary: Do TE's believe in abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis: Yay? Nay? or Undecided?

If TE's believe that science is complementary to the Bible, then at what point does the picking and choosing of the texts that we find are relavant stop?
While I am for neither, of the two I would select supernatural divine intervention every time.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

No Bible texts are relevant to science because they are non-overlapping magisteria.

All Bible texts are relevant to theology.

There is no picking or choosing.

 

[w81minit]

No Bible texts are relevant to science because they are non-overlapping magisteria.

All Bible texts are relevant to theology.

There is no picking or choosing.

So your view is that where the Biblical account differs from accepted scientific evidence, the Bible is wrong. Understood. But for the Theist, is that to say the Bible is irrelevant? If so I understand where you are coming from, but that was the framework of the question asked.

 

[JohnR7]

I have no problem with the possibility that God engineered abiogenesis through the use of natural forces.

Nor do I have a problem with the possibility it may have required a super-natural miracle.

I don't think it makes any difference one way or the other as far as faith in creation is concerned.

When it comes to healing we know that God does work though the natural healing that we find in the body. There are times He will perform a reconstructive miracle. Also we see he will do both. He will use a miracle to remove the cause of the illness, then He will allow the body to heal itself in a natural way. Often this is the way doctors will work. They may take a knife and cut out the cause of the problem, then then they leaves it up to the body to heal itself.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So your view is that where the Biblical account differs from accepted scientific evidence, the Bible is wrong. Understood.

No. I say that where a literal interpretation of the biblical account differs from reality, then the literal interpretation is the wrong one.

But for the Theist, is that to say the Bible is irrelevant?

Nope. Just not literal. Literal and Relevant are not the same thing.

 

[JohnR7]

Speaking only for myself as a Theistic Evolutionist, I would not agree with your first proposition that science is as valuable as Scripture. I do believe, however, that science, as the study of God's Creation, plays a very important role in learning about the nature of God, and the truths we find from the study of God's Creation can, and should, be used to inform our understanding of Scripture when possible.

The differnece is that Scripture is like a well mantained garden, where science is more like a garden that is filled with weeds. Just how many weeds we find in their garden seems to be a matter of opinion. Some people would say there are just a few weeds that get taken care of daily. Then others at times think that their garden is overrun with weeds and that they are choaking out the garden to keep it from being fully productive.

 

[gluadys]

If TE's believe that science is complementary to the Bible, then at what point does the picking and choosing of the texts that we find are relavant stop?

It never began. TEs believe the whole bible; they even believe parts of it are best interpreted literally.

While I am for neither, of the two I would select supernatural divine intervention every time.

Why? Is this not imposing a limit on God that is based on your pre-suppositions?

 

[Hydra009]

The differnece is that Scripture is like a well mantained garden, where science is more like a garden that is filled with weeds.

John, save the anti-science rhetoric for gullible people who will believe it. If you see specific problems with science, then identify them.

 

[w81minit]

No. I say that where a literal interpretation of the biblical account differs from reality, then the literal interpretation is the wrong one.



Nope. Just not literal. Literal and Relevant are not the same thing.

OK - What is the purpose of the Genesis account? Specifically the deal with the serpant, Noah, and the cursing of the ground?
It seems to me that the scripture is pretty clear that within a generation or two the Earth went from no thorns or thistles to thorns and thistles, and 'not yielding her full'.
The serpant went from a legged creature (cross referencing with other scripture) the most beautifal of all to a ground based creature that would swallow dust and crawl on its belly for all time.

One other thing I'd like to ask: I saw on the history channel a study of Atlantis. They were trying to find where it might be. During the show they indicated that there were many moons before Columbus discovered America highly accurate maps of Antarctica's land mass.

All of this seems to point to historical environmental/climactic changes that we do not understand. How does that play into this?

 

[w81minit]

It never began. TEs believe the whole bible; they even believe parts of it are best interpreted literally.




Why? Is this not imposing a limit on God that is based on your pre-suppositions?

No. Actually I believe as has been recorded again and again throughout the biblical texts that God repeatedly intervenes in history on man's behalf. Why would creation be different? I am looking at a consistent God. If I felt like God used a process to create me that could be explained by happenstance it would not give him the due glory. That is not part of the way God operates.

 

[gluadys]

No. Actually I believe as has been recorded again and again throughout the biblical texts that God repeatedly intervenes in history on man's behalf. Why would creation be different? I am looking at a consistent God. If I felt like God used a process to create me that could be explained by happenstance it would not give him the due glory. That is not part of the way God operates.

But it is an incorrect pre-supposition that evolution is a happenstance process, even without considering it from a theistic point-of-view. In the hands of God, there is no reason why evolution would have to be happenstance.

 

[w81minit]

But it is an incorrect pre-supposition that evolution is a happenstance process, even without considering it from a theistic point-of-view. In the hands of God, there is no reason why evolution would have to be happenstance.

Evolution is based entirely on happenstance, randomness, entropy, the ability for things to change based on unpredictable outside forces, and those changes to have unpredictable results.
My God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. If he wasn't how could I depend on him?