Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

[KerrMetric]

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said "science is all lies." Point is, the information obtained by scientists is used by others. That's the point. It doesn't just get published somewhere and sit, gathering dust. It gets used. And sometimes it is used by people like Richard Dawkins to promote their anti-religion agenda.

And I've seen Dawkins on television. He doesn't say, "Well, scientists think this happened this way or think that happened.'" He says, "No, God did not make make man from the earth and breathe life into his nostrils."

Well, now why, a viewer might think, is this scientist making these point of fact statements? Could they be true?

It is not the scientific community as a wholes fault what Richard Dawkins says is it?

I don't believe they are.

Key phrase with the key word highlighted.

 

[gluadys]

I want to let everyone know that some people believe evolution actually happened ONLY because a teacher told them it was so. I contend that that statement (evolution actually happened) is untrue.



God bless,
Eddie

I agree that most people who accept evolution do so because that is what they learned from their teachers. They have not personally investigated it and verified it, any more that they have personally measured the speed of light. And often they do not really understand it.

But the statement--which should be present as well as past i.e. evolution has happened and is happening--is not untrue. This is an observed fact.

Of course, you may be defining evolution in a non-scientific way. I have noted that many creationists (not all) will say that "adaptation is not evolution". This is nonsense. Adaptation is produced by the mechanisms of evolution. It is evolution on a small scale. Speciation is also an observed fact. And that is all you need for evolution to occur on a large scale. There is never any jumping from one larger category such as genus or family to another such category. All evolution proceeds through adaptation and speciation, both of which are observed facts. So evolution does happen and it is not a lie to say so.

 

[Mallon]

God is totally excluded from evolution.

Can you name ONE scientific theory that incorporates God as a mechanism? Just one.

Just do a google search for Richard Dawkins.

Do a Google search on Kenneth Miller for an opposing view.
Why would you subscribe to anything Dawkins has to say about metaphysics?

The theory of evolution is false. God created the heavens and the earth. Jesus Christ speaks about the one who made them. And in Romans 2:

Romans 1:20 says that God can be understood clearly from what He has made. If what he has made clearly and multiply attests to deep time and evolution, should we not take God at His word?

Take heart, brothers and sisters, the metaphysical/spiritual/Christian implications are what matter most. The evidence for the theory of evolution is in dispute.

Not among scientists.

Go ahead, google Richard Dawkins now.

No one here, neither TEs nor YECs, are advocating listening to Richard Dawkins. Again, why do you heed anything he in particular has to say?

Anyways, this all amounts to repetition. You're obviously new here to CF, and you will likely hear many new and possibly disturbing things while you are here. The world is bigger than many Christians suppose. I only hope you will practice and exemplify the same thinking you espouse.

 

[stumpjumper]

Go ahead, google Richard Dawkins now.

Dawkins lives in an epistemological closet and is more dogmatic than most Christians...

Read some Kenneth Miller or John Polkinghorne...

 

[eddieJ]

You obviously have not been reading my posts. Even though God is not mentioned in some scientific paper or journal, what is the point of science? It is used to cure and to kill. It is also used for propaganda purposes. Karl Marx liked Darwin's ideas.

I know what scientists do. A professor friend of mine discussed evolution with me once. A sccientist friend of mine described his research to me and we also discussed things. It makes me wonder why so many (and there are many threads) supporters of evolution come here. It couldn't be to provide a free education to Christians who obviously don't understand evolution, because if they truly did understand it, then they would come to the same conclusions that scientists like Richard Dawkins have. There is no God. Man is just another animal. And we're just here to pass our genes on.

No, I respect scientists. I had an opportunity to work with an inventor once. A doctor.

On a Christian forum, I think it would be safe to say that what surprises me is that the reality of God appears to be missing for some. Did Jesus turn the water into wine instantly? Or feed thousands of people with a few loaves and fishes (yes, I've read the 'Oh, that didn't happen as in he performed a miracle, people just shared what they brought with them'). Amazing how so many atheist web sites feel the need to explain away God and His miracles. Isn't just not believing enough? Apparently not.


God bless,
Eddie

 

[gluadys]

Anyone who does not follow the dogma of science will be ridiculed. There is plenty of evidence that man existed in the "wrong" time period, but evolution is also linked to a worldview that promotes the idea that the entire universe came from nothing (I've read the relevant Science textbook), life came from nothing, and man came from a (presumed but not observed) single celled organism. There is no (zero) room for God in this worldview. None. Go to any atheist web site. Examine what they are talking about. What are their foundational beliefs?


God bless,
Eddie

In the first place that the entire universe came from nothing is a basic Christian doctrine. That is what creatio ex nihilo means: that the universe was created from nothing.

This is only one example of where an unreasoning opposition to evolution leads creationists into actual heresy. Would you contend that God made the universe from something? Was that something then eternal? Where did it come from if God needed it to make the universe?

In the second place, the theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of the universe, the origin of earth or even the origin of life. Nor is it linked to any specific world-view. The only people who link it to an atheistic world-view are athiests and creationists. A curious theological marriage.

In the third place, science does not say that life came from nothing. Just like the bible (which says that life came from earth, water and dust), science says that life came from the already existing elements---not from nothing. Nothing in science proclaims that God had no involvement in the process that derived life from non-living elements.


In the fourth place, it would be more accurate to say that all forms of life, including humans, evolved from a population of single-celled organisms. It is highly improbable that there was ever only one single cell, and even more improbable that all life came from that cell. There is no reason why the process that produced one cell would not also produce thousands of other cells.

Finally, the only basis on which to claim there is no room for God in the processes which originated the universe, the earth and life on earth, and any natural process that affects them, such as gravity or evolution, is to claim that God is neither the author nor sustainer of nature. Please show me where the scriptures make such a claim. I think you will find testimony to the contrary.

Why do you accept the world-view of atheists as a correct inference from science?

 

[Mallon]

It couldn't be to provide a free education to Christians who obviously don't understand evolution, because if they truly did understand it, then they would come to the same conclusions that scientists like Richard Dawkins have. There is no God.

This is exactly what I mean when I say YEC and atheist theology stems from the same presupposition about the scientific accuracy of the Bible.
Vossler, you seeing this?

You accuse others of putting words in your mouth, eddieJ, but you continue to insist that evolution mandates the inexistence of God, despite the insistance by other Christian scientists here that such is not the case. Why do you put more faith in what Dawkins has to say about theology than your own Christian brothers and sisters?

 

[gluadys]

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said "science is all lies." Point is, the information obtained by scientists is used by others. That's the point. It doesn't just get published somewhere and sit, gathering dust. It gets used. And sometimes it is used by people like Richard Dawkins to promote their anti-religion agenda.

Sure it is. But that doesn't make Dawkins right. Christians have a responsibility to find out what Christian scientists in the field say. And to correct scientists like Dawkins when he illegitimately infers metaphysics from science.

I've read Dawkins. I respect him as a scientist and have learned much from him. But he has such a warped understanding of Christianity, I would not accept any statement he makes about religion.

And I've seen Dawkins on television. He doesn't say, "Well, scientists think this happened this way or think that happened.'" He says, "No, God did not make make man from the earth and breathe life into his nostrils."

Well, now why, a viewer might think, is this scientist making these point of fact statements? Could they be true?

I don't believe they are.

Nobody here believes his metaphysical conclusions are true. But we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because his statements about Christianity make no sense doesn't mean his science is unsound. Christians interested in science need to sort the wheat from the chaff so they can correct the erroneous impressions a casual viewer might receive.

Accepting his metaphysical conclusions as true inferences of science is giving in to his worldview. That is the basic weakness of creationism.

 

[withreason]

I agree that most people who accept evolution do so because that is what they learned from their teachers. They have not personally investigated it and verified it, any more that they have personally measured the speed of light. And often they do not really understand it.

But the statement--which should be present as well as past i.e. evolution has happened and is happening--is not untrue. This is an observed fact.

Of course, you may be defining evolution in a non-scientific way. I have noted that many creationists (not all) will say that "adaptation is not evolution". This is nonsense. Adaptation is produced by the mechanisms of evolution. It is evolution on a small scale. Speciation is also an observed fact. And that is all you need for evolution to occur on a large scale. There is never any jumping from one larger category such as genus or family to another such category. All evolution proceeds through adaptation and speciation, both of which are observed facts. So evolution does happen and it is not a lie to say so.

Evolution....blind attempt at defining the mechanisms of God, Relative to the definition of theory....I do not understand how Evolutionists can find a place within the peradigms of faith.....denying while complying....a confusing concept....I am never without amusement in this calcophony of inclusion......cant wait for us to come to life!! for our own confusion testifies to the whole of our state of mind, faith, and infancy of knowledge

 

[Assyrian]

 

[Mallon]

Evolution....blind attempt at defining the mechanisms of God, Relative to the definition of theory....I do not understand how Evolutionists can find a place within the peradigms of faith.....denying while complying....a confusing concept....I am never without amusement in this calcophany of inclusion......cant wait for us to come to life!! for our own confusion testifies to the whole of our state of mind, faith, and infancy of knowledge

Speaking of confusion...

I think Christians would be much less confused about evolution if they pulled up their socks and read, say, Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is.

 

[gluadys]

It couldn't be to provide a free education to Christians who obviously don't understand evolution, because if they truly did understand it, then they would come to the same conclusions that scientists like Richard Dawkins have. There is no God. Man is just another animal. And we're just here to pass our genes on.

Why would they come to this conclusion? Those are not a stated part of the theory of evolution and cannot be legitimately inferred from it.

Did Jesus turn the water into wine instantly? Or feed thousands of people with a few loaves and fishes (yes, I've read the 'Oh, that didn't happen as in he performed a miracle, people just shared what they brought with them').

Just suppose for a moment that people did share what they brought with them. Would that mean no miracle occurred? Which is harder--to multiply loaves or to change selfish hearts to generous hearts? Why would one be counted as a miracle and not the other?

You might note that not one of the four accounts of this miracle actually says that Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes. Only that he blessed and broke them and had them served to the crowd.

Nevertheless I present this as a hypothetical, not an assertion that the miracle did not involve the multiplication of loaves. I just don't understand why the miracle must be physical rather than spiritual. After all, Jesus equated forgiving sins with giving a paralytic the power to walk.

 

[gluadys]

Evolution....blind attempt at defining the mechanisms of God, Relative to the definition of theory....I do not understand how Evolutionists can find a place within the peradigms of faith.....denying while complying....a confusing concept....I am never without amusement in this calcophony of inclusion......cant wait for us to come to life!! for our own confusion testifies to the whole of our state of mind, faith, and infancy of knowledge

Well, at least you agree that evolution is an attempt to define the mechanisms of God. That is the way Christian scientists see the project of science: as ways to understand the mechanisms God used to give us the universe as it is. That puts you way ahead of people who claim that science--and evolution in particular--excludes God.

 

[withreason]

Speaking of confusion...

I think Christians would be much less confused about evolution if they pulled up their socks and read, say, Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is.

Oh yes...of course.....your missing link!!

 

[KerrMetric]

You obviously have not been reading my posts. Even though God is not mentioned in some scientific paper or journal, what is the point of science? It is used to cure and to kill. It is also used for propaganda purposes. Karl Marx liked Darwin's ideas.

Is this an attempt at poisoning the well?

I know what scientists do.

No you don't, that much is obvious based upon your earlier mischaracterisations.

It makes me wonder why so many (and there are many threads) supporters of evolution come here. It couldn't be to provide a free education to Christians who obviously don't understand evolution,

No it is to correct the errors and slanders.

because if they truly did understand it, then they would come to the same conclusions that scientists like Richard Dawkins have. There is no God. Man is just another animal. And we're just here to pass our genes on.

*yawn* - Rubbish.

No, I respect scientists. I had an opportunity to work with an inventor once. A doctor.

Medical doctor? They are usually not scientists since their training is not a scientific one.

On a Christian forum, I think it would be safe to say that what surprises me is that the reality of God appears to be missing for some.

That is your failing not ours.

Did Jesus turn the water into wine instantly? Or feed thousands of people with a few loaves and fishes (yes, I've read the 'Oh, that didn't happen as in he performed a miracle, people just shared what they brought with them'). Amazing how so many atheist web sites feel the need to explain away God and His miracles. Isn't just not believing enough? Apparently not.

So why are you not on those sites fighting the good fight?

 

[withreason]

Well, at least you agree that evolution is an attempt to define the mechanisms of God. That is the way Christian scientists see the project of science: as ways to understand the mechanisms God used to give us the universe as it is. That puts you way ahead of people who claim that science--and evolution in particular--excludes God.

I have never denied that.....it is only quite recently that (evolution)oops! that cant be right....... has made allowance for God! not the other way around! at the same time creating a closer dialogue that was not even considered 20 years ago..I hope there will be ...A big Bang..Ha Ha...of love!! some day

 

[eddieJ]

Clearly, science has become a god for some people. Science is over here and religion is over there. In the real world, people pick up their ideas for living somewhere, not out of thin air.

And that is the problem with the theory of evolution. It's not a fact. It's based on faulty assumptions.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.



God bless,
Eddie

 

[KerrMetric]

Clearly, science has become a god for some people. Science is over here and religion is over there. In the real world, people pick up their ideas for living somewhere, not out of thin air.

Yugioh cards may be a god for some people but that's their problem not mine.

And that is the problem with the theory of evolution. It's not a fact.

Oh boy. You are seriously lacking in education in this area.

It's based on faulty assumptions.

No it isn't. You keep stating things like this but you have not the background to make this on anything but a personal appeal of incredulity.

 

[eddieJ]

Not just my opinion.

http://amasci.com/freenrg/evolv.txt




God bless,
Eddie

 

[hsilgne]

I therefore question the ability of any layman to interpret the evidence fairly. I do think some education is required, in both the natural sciences and science philosophy.

See what I mean?

Seriously, the stench of arrogance here is becoming overwhelming.

I could have multi quoted a whole bunch of examples of this as well. What a shame. The Lord must be so proud.



Just wondering though, how do you clasify those that have earned their PHD in biochemstry who are proponents to creationism? Is it they cheated their way through university to earn that PHD? They "really just don't understand" like they would if they were as "intellegent and educated as YOU"?

Just curious.

Look, there are intelligent UNEDUCATED people - deal with it.

Be respectfull please. Jesus said so - it's in His book.

Now keep in mind this is only coming from an uneducated clueless layman who has an audacity to look at available evidence and form an oppinion.