Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

June 20th, 2011, 6:43 pm #1

I'm more of a deist than this guy. Well, this guy isn't at all a deist. I don't see a personal God involved in the day to day affairs of humans, nor one that controls the weather and climate. More a God that set things in motion, and is a part of this creation. The One became Many.

So this is quite a long article, but I'll paste a couple of things I agree with or find interesting, and provide the link for the whole thing.

In part I hope this answers the question of how one can be a creationist, yet not accept Genesis in a literal/material manner.

Excerpts:

...

Theistic evolution is the proposition that God is in charge of the biological process called evolution. God directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over millions of years. Theistic evolution contends that there is no conflict between science and the Biblical book of Genesis.

...

I reject the idea that evolution and Christianity are always and must be in opposition to each other. I reject the notion that if the scientific theory of evolution is true, then Christianity must be false. I reject the idea that people who accept evolution must be atheists. I reject the idea that the scientific theory of evolution fundamentally denies the idea of God the Creator. I reject the idea that evolution and Christian faith are inevitably in conflict with each other and cannot be reconciled.

...

One often reads the statement that "evolution says the earth is billions of years old." This statement is incorrect. Astronomy and geology say that the earth is billions of years old. Evolution draws on these disciplines for an estimate of the time in which the evolutionary processes can work. This point is important in order to realize the breadth of the quarrel about the age of the earth. If you assert that the earth is only 10,000 years old, you are disputing far more areas of the natural sciences than just a portion of biology.

...

There is not enough water to cover the entire earth, including the top of Mt. Everest (29, 028 feet above sea level). If the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, it would raise sea levels only a few hundred feet (see calculation). If every cloud worldwide were to rain out all its water, it would still raise the sea levels only another inch. Genesis reports that the "fountains of the deep" spewed forth more water. Until geologists find evidence of these fountains, or discover the underground aquifers that hold 6 miles deep of water worldwide, I cannot honestly accept the idea of a non-miraculous worldwide flood. When evidence for fountains is discovered, I'll be happy to take a look at it.
...

Many words, phrases, and stories in the Bible are obviously non-literal. Some cases are not so obvious. But it is a mistake to insist that certain portions of Genesis must be taken literally because it supports someone's viewpoint. It incorrectly projects our Western data-centric mindset onto the Hebrew way of thinking. There are fundamentalist Christians who insist that the Apostle Paul's "thorn in the flesh" (2 Corinthians 12:7) must be interpreted non-literally (they contend that this passage refers to a person who was harrassing Paul, not a physical ailment). The Bible uses non-literal metaphors and illustrations to reveal the ways of God because our language and experience cannot fully express His divine nature.

...

Peace

I have been advised to put aside all the arguments and science, and to read Genesis and listen to what the Holy Spirit is telling me. When I read the first chapters of Genesis in this manner, I have peace. I am confident that God has created me and all that exists. I know that mankind is at the very center of God's love. I know that God Almighty is the Creator and Ruler of the universe. I realize that we have all sinned, and that only Jesus Christ can redeem us. I am confident that nothing under heaven or on earth can ever separate us from the Love of God in Jesus Christ (Romans 8:36-39)!

When I read the literature of creationists and talk with them, I have no peace. I feel doubt about the Christian church and anger at people who are supposed to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. After encountering false information I become suspicious of what I read and hear. So I don't associate with creationists very much, and I rarely discuss these matters.

This essay came about only because anti-evolution views were thrust forward at a worship service. I heed the warning in Titus 3:9-11: "Don't get involved in arguing over unanswerable questions and controversial theological ideas; keep out of arguments and quarrels about obedience to Jewish laws, for this kind of thing isn't worthwhile; it only does harm. If anyone is causing divisions among you, he should be given a first and second warning. After that have nothing more to do with him, for such a person has a wrong sense of values. He is sinning, and he knows it."


The link:
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theis ... ution.html
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 30th, 2009, 7:55 pm

June 20th, 2011, 6:55 pm #2

the article said: Theistic evolution is the proposition that God is in charge of the biological process called evolution. God directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over millions of years. Theistic evolution contends that there is no conflict between science and the Biblical book of Genesis.

What evidence would lead the author to believe that "god is in charge of the biological process called evolution", and that "god directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over millions of years"?

He failed to mention this.

Therein lies the main problem of "Theistic Evolution". No evidence to support the "Theistic" aspect.

-----------------------------------------------
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." -- Robert M. Pirsig
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

June 20th, 2011, 6:58 pm #3

There is now way to prove this. I was just trying to show that a theist can believe in evolution.

As a theist, one would pretty well have to believe that God has a hand in evolution. Otherwise, what's the point of theism?

As an agnostic/deist, I think more that the processes were "designed", or enfolded or whatever .. and the involvement is much less direct.

Kind of like an experiment that you sent in motion, and watch unfold. You don't control the reaction. But set up the conditions and start the ball rolling.



Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

June 20th, 2011, 7:04 pm #4

I'm more of a deist than this guy. Well, this guy isn't at all a deist. I don't see a personal God involved in the day to day affairs of humans, nor one that controls the weather and climate. More a God that set things in motion, and is a part of this creation. The One became Many.

So this is quite a long article, but I'll paste a couple of things I agree with or find interesting, and provide the link for the whole thing.

In part I hope this answers the question of how one can be a creationist, yet not accept Genesis in a literal/material manner.

Excerpts:

...

Theistic evolution is the proposition that God is in charge of the biological process called evolution. God directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over millions of years. Theistic evolution contends that there is no conflict between science and the Biblical book of Genesis.

...

I reject the idea that evolution and Christianity are always and must be in opposition to each other. I reject the notion that if the scientific theory of evolution is true, then Christianity must be false. I reject the idea that people who accept evolution must be atheists. I reject the idea that the scientific theory of evolution fundamentally denies the idea of God the Creator. I reject the idea that evolution and Christian faith are inevitably in conflict with each other and cannot be reconciled.

...

One often reads the statement that "evolution says the earth is billions of years old." This statement is incorrect. Astronomy and geology say that the earth is billions of years old. Evolution draws on these disciplines for an estimate of the time in which the evolutionary processes can work. This point is important in order to realize the breadth of the quarrel about the age of the earth. If you assert that the earth is only 10,000 years old, you are disputing far more areas of the natural sciences than just a portion of biology.

...

There is not enough water to cover the entire earth, including the top of Mt. Everest (29, 028 feet above sea level). If the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, it would raise sea levels only a few hundred feet (see calculation). If every cloud worldwide were to rain out all its water, it would still raise the sea levels only another inch. Genesis reports that the "fountains of the deep" spewed forth more water. Until geologists find evidence of these fountains, or discover the underground aquifers that hold 6 miles deep of water worldwide, I cannot honestly accept the idea of a non-miraculous worldwide flood. When evidence for fountains is discovered, I'll be happy to take a look at it.
...

Many words, phrases, and stories in the Bible are obviously non-literal. Some cases are not so obvious. But it is a mistake to insist that certain portions of Genesis must be taken literally because it supports someone's viewpoint. It incorrectly projects our Western data-centric mindset onto the Hebrew way of thinking. There are fundamentalist Christians who insist that the Apostle Paul's "thorn in the flesh" (2 Corinthians 12:7) must be interpreted non-literally (they contend that this passage refers to a person who was harrassing Paul, not a physical ailment). The Bible uses non-literal metaphors and illustrations to reveal the ways of God because our language and experience cannot fully express His divine nature.

...

Peace

I have been advised to put aside all the arguments and science, and to read Genesis and listen to what the Holy Spirit is telling me. When I read the first chapters of Genesis in this manner, I have peace. I am confident that God has created me and all that exists. I know that mankind is at the very center of God's love. I know that God Almighty is the Creator and Ruler of the universe. I realize that we have all sinned, and that only Jesus Christ can redeem us. I am confident that nothing under heaven or on earth can ever separate us from the Love of God in Jesus Christ (Romans 8:36-39)!

When I read the literature of creationists and talk with them, I have no peace. I feel doubt about the Christian church and anger at people who are supposed to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. After encountering false information I become suspicious of what I read and hear. So I don't associate with creationists very much, and I rarely discuss these matters.

This essay came about only because anti-evolution views were thrust forward at a worship service. I heed the warning in Titus 3:9-11: "Don't get involved in arguing over unanswerable questions and controversial theological ideas; keep out of arguments and quarrels about obedience to Jewish laws, for this kind of thing isn't worthwhile; it only does harm. If anyone is causing divisions among you, he should be given a first and second warning. After that have nothing more to do with him, for such a person has a wrong sense of values. He is sinning, and he knows it."


The link:
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theis ... ution.html
Just a link to an article that was posted on another forum, that got some of my thoughts started here.

I think the "logic" in the link is poor, and easily refuted. For example, the whole "Cause and Effect" idea. Everything must be caused. Except "God". Well .. everything need not be caused. Particles pop in and out of existence all the time. But let's talk on a macro level. We can agree most likely that the Cosmos is not entirely causal. There must be something uncaused, acausal .. otherwise it is just Turtles all the way down

Anyway, here is the link to "Evidence for God":

http://www.icr.org/God/


I'm not trying to bring conflict or show my teeth ^^^. Just sharing opinions ..

Respectfully,
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 30th, 2009, 7:55 pm

June 20th, 2011, 7:20 pm #5

There is now way to prove this. I was just trying to show that a theist can believe in evolution.

As a theist, one would pretty well have to believe that God has a hand in evolution. Otherwise, what's the point of theism?

As an agnostic/deist, I think more that the processes were "designed", or enfolded or whatever .. and the involvement is much less direct.

Kind of like an experiment that you sent in motion, and watch unfold. You don't control the reaction. But set up the conditions and start the ball rolling.


I used to be a theistic evolutionist myself when I was a Deist, and even before that when I was a Christian. As are all of my family members except for one sister who's a Jehovah's Witness. For some reason, you can't join the J.W. cult unless you disavow science, but for some reason, they allow them to keep their television sets and computers (both created by science), but I digress...

And you are right. No one can prove there's a god, no more than one can prove that the world was created by a giant yellow kangaroo. Doesn't mean it's rational to believe in the giant yellow kangaroo.

-----------------------------------------------
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." -- Robert M. Pirsig
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 30th, 2009, 7:55 pm

June 20th, 2011, 7:24 pm #6

Just a link to an article that was posted on another forum, that got some of my thoughts started here.

I think the "logic" in the link is poor, and easily refuted. For example, the whole "Cause and Effect" idea. Everything must be caused. Except "God". Well .. everything need not be caused. Particles pop in and out of existence all the time. But let's talk on a macro level. We can agree most likely that the Cosmos is not entirely causal. There must be something uncaused, acausal .. otherwise it is just Turtles all the way down

Anyway, here is the link to "Evidence for God":

http://www.icr.org/God/


I'm not trying to bring conflict or show my teeth ^^^. Just sharing opinions ..

Respectfully,
Mondo said: I think the "logic" in the link is poor, and easily refuted. For example, the whole "Cause and Effect" idea. Everything must be caused. Except "God".

You hit the nail on the head, and shown how they just shot themselves in the foot with their own "logic".

Everything must have a cause. Well, except god.

Yet another example of how Christians CONSTANTLY move the goal posts back as needed to give "logic" to their hallucinations. And yet another example of how supernaturalists are their own worst enemies when trying to discuss "logic".

If religionists understood logic, they wouldn't be religionists.

-----------------------------------------------
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." -- Robert M. Pirsig
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 13th, 2010, 2:50 pm

June 20th, 2011, 8:06 pm #7

Just a link to an article that was posted on another forum, that got some of my thoughts started here.

I think the "logic" in the link is poor, and easily refuted. For example, the whole "Cause and Effect" idea. Everything must be caused. Except "God". Well .. everything need not be caused. Particles pop in and out of existence all the time. But let's talk on a macro level. We can agree most likely that the Cosmos is not entirely causal. There must be something uncaused, acausal .. otherwise it is just Turtles all the way down

Anyway, here is the link to "Evidence for God":

http://www.icr.org/God/


I'm not trying to bring conflict or show my teeth ^^^. Just sharing opinions ..

Respectfully,
Is the phenememon of nodal patterns caused, or is it simply emergent out of the system in which we exist? I believe that it's the latter, myself.

Is mathematics caused? Is 2+2=4 caused? These seem not caused to me.

Is art, beauty, or inpsiration caused? Again, these seem doubtful to be "caused".


I suspect that I'm arguing your point, but I simpley grow tired of the fallacious argument that poses "everything must be caused, which therefor proves God exists". It's ridiculous nonsense to anyone that understands logic and how to reason.
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

June 20th, 2011, 11:33 pm #8

Just a link to an article that was posted on another forum, that got some of my thoughts started here.

I think the "logic" in the link is poor, and easily refuted. For example, the whole "Cause and Effect" idea. Everything must be caused. Except "God". Well .. everything need not be caused. Particles pop in and out of existence all the time. But let's talk on a macro level. We can agree most likely that the Cosmos is not entirely causal. There must be something uncaused, acausal .. otherwise it is just Turtles all the way down

Anyway, here is the link to "Evidence for God":

http://www.icr.org/God/


I'm not trying to bring conflict or show my teeth ^^^. Just sharing opinions ..

Respectfully,
 

..... is seriously lacking.

<p align="left">Religionists are confronted with this one huge, insurmountable problem: they cannot produce their fetish. That is why the evidence supposedly in support of it will always end up empty - religionists cannot show their main premise to be sound.
<p align="left">One of the things religionists (fail to) face is that explicit contains implicit and the implications of the dogmas they claim to adhere to undermine the explicit doctrine those dogmas depend upon.
<p align="left">Consequently, religionists will prove themselves unable to address it in a reasonable and/or logical manner, if at all.
<p align="center"><a rel="nofollow"><img border="0" alt="" src="http://images.bravenet.com/common/image ... a.gif"></a>
<p align="center"> 
<p align="center">If you start with the proposition that an ideology, religious or otherwise, is true ---> then anything that directly challenges it is necessarily wrong ---> which serves as a preemptive rejection of contrary information ---> which installs a proactive distrust of dissenters ---> and any action to promote and/or defend the ideology is then justified ---> since the ideology is correct. Cool uh?
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : incontrovertibility
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
<img alt="[linked image]" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... tworks.gif">

CD: short for inevitability
Last edited by JVH on June 20th, 2011, 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

June 20th, 2011, 11:46 pm #9

the article said: Theistic evolution is the proposition that God is in charge of the biological process called evolution. God directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over millions of years. Theistic evolution contends that there is no conflict between science and the Biblical book of Genesis.

What evidence would lead the author to believe that "god is in charge of the biological process called evolution", and that "god directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over millions of years"?

He failed to mention this.

Therein lies the main problem of "Theistic Evolution". No evidence to support the "Theistic" aspect.

-----------------------------------------------
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." -- Robert M. Pirsig
 

..... as "parsimony" demands, invoking "God" is positioning one entity too many.......
<p align="center"><img border="0" alt="" src="http://www.fiero.nl/forum/smilies/smiley_think.gif">
<p align="center"> 
<p align="center">
<p align="center">Occam's Razor uses only one blade
<p align="center">It's simpler that way


rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : incontrovertibility
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -


New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!


CD: short for inevitability
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

June 21st, 2011, 1:02 am #10

Is the phenememon of nodal patterns caused, or is it simply emergent out of the system in which we exist? I believe that it's the latter, myself.

Is mathematics caused? Is 2+2=4 caused? These seem not caused to me.

Is art, beauty, or inpsiration caused? Again, these seem doubtful to be "caused".


I suspect that I'm arguing your point, but I simpley grow tired of the fallacious argument that poses "everything must be caused, which therefor proves God exists". It's ridiculous nonsense to anyone that understands logic and how to reason.
Suppose we finally reach the stage where we can create artificial computer intelligence SO REAL that it begins to ask ... where did I come from? So it finds CODE from which it was created. Aha! So THAT'S how it was done! So it finds how complex code was begotten from simpler code ... which was begotten from even simpler code (and a bunch of "junk code" in there too, for no understandable reason) ... and simpler code etc. Ultimately though, the artificial intelligence cannot find a "first cause" ... because it EXPECTS the first cause to have been code!~~

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share