Why do you feel a NEED for theistic evolution?

[KenJackson]

If evolution was a plausible explanation for how life developed from a microbe, I could understand theistic evolution. The Lord God created us. So the only issue is whether he used something like evolution or not.

But evolution is not plausible. By evolution I refer to the formation of all the taxons from the hypothetical first microbial life to the taxonomic families observed today and in fossils. Evolution should not refer to the formation of new species and genera caused by mutations breaking genes. This speciation (or micro-evolution) is observed and is not contentious so conflating it with evolution only confuses the discussion.

Those of you who believe in theistic evolution, do you actually believe evolution is possible? Do you think there is any evidence from molecular biology? Or do you think fossils actually support evolution better than being hard proof of the flood?

For decades, I didn't investigated the evidence but just accepted what I was told science revealed. Does that describe you?

Why do you feel a need for theistic evolution?

 

[solid_core]

If evolution was a plausible explanation for how life developed from a microbe, I could understand theistic evolution. The Lord God created us. So the only issue is whether he used something like evolution or not.

But evolution is not plausible. By evolution I refer to the formation of all the taxons from the hypothetical first microbial life to the taxonomic families observed today and in fossils. Evolution should not refer to the formation of new species and genera caused by mutations breaking genes. This speciation (or micro-evolution) is observed and is not contentious so conflating it with evolution only confuses the discussion.

Those of you who believe in theistic evolution, do you actually believe evolution is possible? Do you think there is any evidence from molecular biology? Or do you think fossils actually support evolution better than being hard proof of the flood?

For decades, I didn't investigated the evidence but just accepted what I was told science revealed. Does that describe you?

Why do you feel a need for theistic evolution?

As it is impossible to manage sailing or trading based on a mythological view of the world, so it is impossible to use mythological model of Genesis for biology, astronomy, meteorology or paleontology.

Therefore some other plausible models must be proposed like the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Evolution.

But because there is still a need for God as the origin and purpose of all creation and reality, the theistic evolution works for most Christians. Also because we believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

 

[KenJackson]

... so it is impossible to use mythological model of Genesis for biology, ...

I'm not certain what your "mythological model of Genesis" is, but it looks like your answer is that you actually believe evolution is possible.

Back when I assumed evolution must have happened, I poked fun at Christians who believed God created life but who didn't give any thought at all to how. I asked if there was an audible pop when Adam suddenly displaced air, or if his body absorbed the air he would have displaced, or if God scooted the air out of the way creating an Adam-shaped vacuum for him to fill.

But now that I understand the nature of proteins and the unsolvable dilemma posed by the genetic code, I realize the sudden appearance of Adam is absolutely no less plausible than evolution in scientific terms. The difference is that the historical record preserved in the Bible sounds like a sudden creation which presents less overall problems.

 

[solid_core]

I'm not certain what your "mythological model of Genesis" is, but it looks like your answer is that you actually believe evolution is possible.

Back when I assumed evolution must have happened, I poked fun at Christians who believed God created life but who didn't give any thought at all to how. I asked if there was an audible pop when Adam suddenly displaced air, or if his body absorbed the air he would have displaced, or if God scooted the air out of the way creating an Adam-shaped vacuum for him to fill.

But now that I understand the nature of proteins and the unsolvable dilemma posed by the genetic code, I realize the sudden appearance of Adam is absolutely no less plausible than evolution in scientific terms. The difference is that the historical record preserved in the Bible sounds like a sudden creation which presents less overall problems.

Mythological model of Genesis - creation week, man from dust, breathing into his nostrils, talking snake, woman taken from man's rib, tree of life, tree of knowledge, solid firmanent in which there are lights etc.

Its a mythological model, not a scientific model.

 

[Amittai]

It might be that God feels a need for it. Ultra briefly and partly:

- estimates for everything from Mytochondrial Eve to the "beginning of the universe" are working estimates
- there have been many floods, see Eden in the East by Stephen Oppenheimer (it was more like one of the Babels)
- Stephen Jay Gould's writings have shed a little light on some apparent or probable or possible hyptheses about periods when there could have been mutations and exterminations. Already detected species ARE the transitional forms
- Linnaean classification, the later genetics and other areas of theory arose separately and we await better insight how & if they interrelate
- Lisa Randall in Dark Matter & the Dinosaurs (sounds like a 1970s rock group) illustrates just as a small sample of work still to be done, how there is interaction between what is on Earth, relatively near to Earth, and extremely far from Earth
- fragments of proteins allegedly do get found in matter in space
- to revise chronologies does not negate the bulk of research work achieved by scholars of all "factions" * because everybody's work largely complements others' work
- inserting our spiritual capacity and our destiny as free individuals DID happen when we "were made" human. No-one knows "how long" there were life forms before that.
- Some volcanoes were far bigger than Krakatoa etc
- Mankind did witness dragon-like animals, as kids we used to pick cards out of the tea packet saying there are still 6 ft ones in Komodo
- In a 1994 publication of the Santa Fe Institute, Proceedings XIX about Complexity, two contributors give their own potted version of what they see as "darwinism", one obviously even more off beam than the other
- Darwin didn't know where his data pointed and was higly influenced by Huxley and Spenser. "Survival of the Fittest" comes from Spenser before Darwin published his famous works.
- I am not joining any dots, simply rejoicing in what a lovely lot of dots there are

Much history and science was destroyed in Persia in around 330 BC, in Alexandria in 48 BC and 391 AD, in Viking raids on Ireland, in the loss of Ibn Sina's library, in King Henry's raids on monasteries, in 1992 in Jaffna . . .

Buried objects have been smashed or the places where they were dug up not recorded.

Christians should pray for learning to be protected from destruction, IMO.

* There are "short" as well as "new" chronologists. I personally mix & match among the details

 

[Amittai]

Adam wasn't the first man but a migrant after one of the bigger floods. As in stories all over the world collected by Frazer and explained by Oppenheimer, the earth is reappearing. A pediatric epidemiological geneticist, Oppenheimer studied the folklore of peoples with differing immunity to diseases.

The Hebrew attached the meaning of "Creation out of nothing" or out of "next to nothing", to the picture in the story.

All Scripture is nonsense without its meaning.

There is no meaning without the Scripture.

Where not many people wrote or read, lore got coded. Sometimes political and religious reformations are reflected in stories (Nimrod was doing both, according to David Rohl). Sensitive issues had to be stated obliquely and also entertainment value aids memory. In some cases like gods with upwards of 8 arms ( ) iconography influenced wording (it may refer to something military).

 

[Monna]

Those of you who believe in theistic evolution, do you actually believe evolution is possible? Do you think there is any evidence from molecular biology?

I don't think very much, and I'm not sure I'm so bothered. I am not molecular biologist. But I do have a question: apropo the current pandemic, a professor of virology tells me that a virus is not a living thing. I understand that the corona virus is RNA that cannot reproduce by itself; it is a chain of molecules. Yet viruses mutate, i.e. evolve. The common cold is a corona virus that has mutated into numerous varieties. Does this constitue evidence of evolution at the molecular level? If the virus is not a living thing, is it even part of "biology?"

This is not a challenge, just a straightforward couple of questions.

I have lived and travelled in the tropics most of my life. I had my first bout of malaria when I was 5 months old. (Malaria is not a virus, it is a parasite.) Through the years, and across the tropics, I have experienced a constant change in prophylactic and treatment medicines, in two directions - 1. in one location through time, and 2. within a short period of time but in many different locations. Malaria in one place has become "immune" to the drugs used over time, i.e. there must have been molecular changes to enable malaria to resist the drug being used. Drugs work at the molecular level. But there is variation over space too, so the rate as well as the type of change has apparently been different in different locations. Does this type of change constitute evolution at molecular level?

 

[Jesse Johnson]

The NEED for theistic evolution is born out of a shotgun wedding of science and religion that stems from the default "Can't we all just get along" motif in post-modern culture. Thirty years ago it was seen as controversial, thirty years before that it was considered scandalous, and today it's the bee's knees. The science stinks. It cannot be reconciled even among its adherents and the rules are ever-changing. The hermeneutic is even worse. It's impossible to build a systematic theology with it. I can't agree to disagree, either. Sorry for the rant.

 

[Amittai]

1. I do agree "evolution" doesn't seem a very good word for what's been going on, I just use it loosely

2. I don't maintain the Hebrews copied Sumeria/Babylonian stories but theirs may have received a little touching up. In any case Abraham probably came from thereabouts and Midian where Moses spent time wasn't that far. Also some people think Amorites shared influences with those parts (Abraham's friends). If Seth, Enoch, Cush et al had roots in the Zagros just to take a hypthesis, that again isn't far off. But every people will have had unique experience and their own testimony of what their various ancestors saw.

(It took about six years to trundle by cart from west Asia to East Asia, longer by boating around coasts or walking.)

I'm setting the scene for the rib issue - in Sumerian the word for rib is the same as the word for "She who gives life" (Eve, the same root as "Yahweh"/"Jehovah").

3. Numerology occurs in texts as an accuracy check. Fake mysticism only crept in later. In some cultures certain texts are to this day taught orally then when a person has become a master, he is then given the text as a back-up.

Wonderful thread, you've pressed one of my favourite buttons!

 

[solid_core]

I don't think very much, and I'm not sure I'm so bothered. I am not molecular biologist. But I do have a question: apropo the current pandemic, a professor of virology tells me that a virus is not a living thing. I understand that the corona virus is RNA that cannot reproduce by itself; it is a chain of molecules. Yet viruses mutate, i.e. evolve. The common cold is a corona virus that has mutated into numerous varieties. Does this constitue evidence of evolution at the molecular level? If the virus is not a living thing, is it even part of "biology?"

This is not a challenge, just a straightforward couple of questions.

I have lived and travelled in the tropics most of my life. I had my first bout of malaria when I was 5 months old. (Malaria is not a virus, it is a parasite.) Through the years, and across the tropics, I have experienced a constant change in prophylactic and treatment medicines, in two directions - 1. in one location through time, and 2. within a short period of time but in many different locations. Malaria in one place has become "immune" to the drugs used over time, i.e. there must have been molecular changes to enable malaria to resist the drug being used. Drugs work at the molecular level. But there is variation over space too, so the rate as well as the type of change has apparently been different in different locations. Does this type of change constitute evolution at molecular level?

I have just listened to an interview with a molecular biologist and there was also a question if virus is a living organism.

He says that its something between living organisms and non living things. It needs to get into a cell to reproduce and to begin to "live", but is quite inactive until that.

But if you want an example of mutations on "small levels", then bacterias, that are living organisms, are constantly developing resistance to various antibiotics.

 

[Amittai]

... Thirty years ago it was seen as controversial, thirty years before that it was considered scandalous, and today it's the bee's knees. ... the rules are ever-changing. The hermeneutic is even worse. It's impossible to build a systematic theology with it. ...

Our posts tumbled over each other. Things I came across serendipitously have helped me with my own "hermeneutics".

Newman liked theistic "evolution" and so did my dad and most of my teachers (including agnostics). It's actually become LESS fashionable.

Monna, you mention crystalline RNA, and clay is crystalline. Research on how planets formed continues. God our Potter with the apparent link between malarial and covid remediation, is reminding us we are close to clay, somehow.

 

[Jesse Johnson]

It's actually become LESS fashionable.

Not buyin' it. Sorry.

 

[Jesse Johnson]

Things I came across serendipitously have helped me with my own "hermeneutics".

Why the ""s? It's usually a sign of disrespect in a forum setting.
Ok, I'll play along.
"Serendipitously?"
So you were pleasantly surprised to have your doubts as to the authority of Scripture confirmed?

 

[Amittai]

No because "There is no meaning without the Scripture."

 

[Jesse Johnson]

I don't speak Riddle fluently but I suspect you're fiddling with historical criticism. In any case, to each his own religious liberty, I always say, and since this kind of thing never ends well for me, I believe I'll just exit-stage-left.
<------------------

 

[Amittai]

... I'll just exit-stage-left.
<------------------

I like "tic", it's shorter than "tics" but I'll probably forget.

Big set of subjects, causes to lose breath touching on it.

I was relating fashions in my circles (Newman was shortly before my time I admit). Petto & Godfrey compiled Scientists Confront pubd 2007 relating parts of the recent debate in the US. I've also met a new kind of secularists hereabouts myself.

 

[Jesse Johnson]

I like "tic", it's shorter than "tics" but I'll probably forget.

Big set of subjects, causes to lose breath touching on it.

I was relating fashions in my circles (Newman was shortly before my time I admit). Petto & Godfrey compiled Scientists Confront pubd 2007 relating parts of the recent debate in the US. I've also met a new kind of secularists hereabouts myself.

Doubtless. Pluralism is en vogue.

 

[Amittai]

...

But if you want an example of mutations on "small levels", then bacterias, that are living organisms, are constantly developing resistance to various antibiotics.

I think mutations occur in a different way or ways between different species.

Also there is the whole epigenetics area.

Moreover we don't know they had tear off calendars or stopwatches. Orbits change then a damping "mechanism" evidently holds them relatively steady in between.

Hypotheses get made to act as a sort of template to evaluate other hypotheses but we should be wary of thinking this leads to ultra firm conclusions.

 

[SkyWriting]

If evolution was a plausible explanation for how life developed from a microbe, I could understand theistic evolution. The Lord God created us. So the only issue is whether he used something like evolution or not.

But evolution is not plausible. By evolution I refer to the formation of all the taxons from the hypothetical first microbial life to the taxonomic families observed today and in fossils. Evolution should not refer to the formation of new species and genera caused by mutations breaking genes. This speciation (or micro-evolution) is observed and is not contentious so conflating it with evolution only confuses the discussion.

Those of you who believe in theistic evolution, do you actually believe evolution is possible? Do you think there is any evidence from molecular biology? Or do you think fossils actually support evolution better than being hard proof of the flood?

For decades, I didn't investigated the evidence but just accepted what I was told science revealed. Does that describe you?

Why do you feel a need for theistic evolution?

The scriptures describe a long, drawn out process. That is why.
That is my only reason.

 

[SkyWriting]

No because "There is no meaning without the Scripture."

Literally, nobody says that.

0 results.