Theistic versus atheistic evolution

[lucaspa]

The thing is we are supposedly made in "gods" image. Correct? Do we have all the properties that a god has? No.

That isn't what the phrase means. It never says we have all the properties of God.

Actually, what the phrase meant at the time was that the person (ambassador or merchant factor) was that the person had the power to make binding deals for the king or merchant. The ambassador or factor was "in the image" of the king or merchant. If you look at the phrase, the verse right after that has God giving "dominion" over the earth to humans. IOW, whatever humans do with the planet, it is as tho God were doing it. It's about power, not about attributes.

 

[lucaspa]

I get your point, the the problem is that there is no proof or need for it. It's like me telling you about a force that saves you everyday but you can't know it or test for it.

It's a pointless hypothesis and is just not smart.

You are setting up a criteria here: a hypothesis that you can't know or test for it is "pointless" and wrong. If you set up that criteria, a lot of what science does falls into this category and we have to throw out a lot of scientific work.

For instance, tachyons can't be tested and we don't know if they exist. They are allowed by SR. Should we say definitively that tachyons don't exist?

All the multiverse theories can't be known or tested for. Neither can No Boundary. Would you like to tell Hawking and other physicists that No Boundary is "a pointless hypothesis and is just not smart"?

Einstein's lambda in the GR equations fit this criteria also. I know you admire GR, but if we adopt your criteria we have to throw it out because it talks about a force that we can't know or test.

Basically, Live_Free, you have made the fallacy of Special Pleading. You have set up a criteria that you want to use for God but want to ignore for science.

 

[Dillinger]

I'm a bit confused on what differentiates theistic evolution and atheistic evolution. Could you explain to me, at a fundamental level, what distinguishes these? I'm an Engineer, so a scientific viewpoint would be appreciated. As for as myself, I'm undecided except that "God did it". I understand theistic evolution involves God and atheistic evolution does not include God, but I want to go deeper in understanding the differences.

The neo-Dariwinian theory of evolution is ultimately based on pure chance events. (Random mutations are directly linked with quantum events which are pure chance events.) Pure chance events have no physical cause by definition. That invalidates materialism. So, quantum events provide the "mechanism" (if that is the right term) for theistic evolution.

 

[MoneyGuy]

I'm a theistic-evolution believer who believes that the only theory that makes sense to me is that all that we see around us was created by God, and that it all just happening doesn't make sense to me. I'm in a camp with Francis Collins. I'm wondering how many here have become Christians through thoughtful consideration and critical thought. It bothers me when I hear Christians say, 'well I just believe just because. I have my faith and that's all I need.' for those who came to God through critical thought, how do you explain your beliefs to non-believers? I haven't had a chance to read this whole thread but intend to do that.