How can theists believe in Darwinian evolution?

It should be obvious to you what I mean, because you have just written the crux of the contradiction. Darwinian evolution suggests that all of life occurred and can be explained ONLY by naturalistic events, that are unguided or unorganized-and yet for Christians nothing is purely naturalistic, or unguided or unorganized.

Fell free to ask this in a thread where it is relevant.

Yup, need to be accepted by a recognized chapter of a club in order to be a member of a club. Also, 'have been' does not qualify someone as being a member of the club. They can of course claim to 'have been' once a member of the club.But heading back towards the topic...Are you aware of the Clergy Letter Project?It says in part: Currently it has been signed by over 12,000 Clergy, not simply believers or club members but Priests, Pastors, Ministers, clergy of all manner.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I wonder if Bolder and Flyer would consider these non-christians.
Clergy Letter Project

quote:

---

The Clergy Letter Project has been officially endorsed by The United Methodist Church!
The Clergy Letter Project has been officially endorsed by the Southeast Florida Diocese of the Episcopal Church!
The Clergy Letter Project has been officially endorsed by the Southwestern Washington Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America!

---

I guess those pesky Methodists can all just be thrown right out.To carry this a step further. I wonder if Bolder and Flyer would even consider any of these they want to throw out of Christianity as deists? Are there any non-Christian deists? How would they define a non-christian deist?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The post that you have now ducked for the third or fourth or fifth time, I've lost count, makes it perfectly clear why this is relevant.So, do you want to answer post #34, or do you want to try to dodge out of it again?

I am generally aware that there are people that hold this belief. What I am asking here is for someone to explain in more depth what this belief is.Do these people believe that at some point, 200,000 some years ago, when they believe some transitional species starting separating from a more apelike creature, that God suddenly decided, hey this is my chance, I like the current form that this accidental merging of protein goo has formed, "I choose this one to give a soul to-although other than this, I never interfere in anything going on down there BTW." Well, ok, that's not completely true, i have been giving souls to a lot of people since then, BUT other than these examples, I never ever get involved in anything going on there at all."This is what they believe? Was there a soul Eve-a sort of transitional apelike man that got the first soul, while all her brothers and sisters didn't? I sure feel sorry for all her poor sap relatives. And if she mated with a apelike man without the new soul thingy, did their newborn get the soul, while the father was still a cretin?More than likely most of them don't even have a clear understanding of what Neo-Darwinian evolution actually says I suspect.

Let me try to correct a few things.First, Neo-Darwinian evolution is like all theories, a moving target. As new evidence is introduced, the Theory changes.Second, there is yet no evidence that there is a soul, what such a thing might be or that if such a thing exists, it is limited to humans.The Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with 'soul'. Ray Charles on the other hand, does. So did Billie Holiday, Eartha Kitt, Aretha Franklin, Big Mama Thornton and Janis Joplin.The existence of some soul is only a matter of belief. No one honestly has a clue whether or not such a thing exists. There is no way to test for its existence or verify its existence. There is not even enough evidence of the existence 'soul' to place it into the "Unknown Yet" folder.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi Bolder-dash I agree entirely with your point. It is absolutely ridiculous and dissonant for anyone to hold the view that humans emerged from a completely unplanned process of evolution, and simultaneously hold the view that we are God's special children.

This demonstrates that christians are out of luck, since there is no evidence of interference with the evolutionary process. Those poor chaps have been caught holding false beliefs.It is not a given that the ideas promoted by religions are true ideas.

Nice tone of contempt. But you have yet to explain why the position you outline is sillier than your own theology.Indeed, so far as I can see, the advantage is all on their side. They are trying to give God credit for things that actually happened (apart from the stuff about souls, of course) whereas you are trying to give God credit for things that didn't actually happen. And you think you do?Oh, my dear chap.

quote:

---

Darwinian evolution suggests that all of life occurred and can be explained ONLY by naturalistic events, that are unguided or unorganized

---

Is this any different from any other scientific theory? All of science tries to formulate naturalistic theories that can fully explain scientific mechanisms, with no gaps in the explanation.

quote:

---

-and yet for Christians nothing is purely naturalistic, or unguided or unorganized.

---

Yes; there is more to the universe than just testable science. We believe God is behind the scenes upholding the universe and the scientific laws that He has put in place.I'm still not clear what you are asking. Are you asking whether or not the science of evolution is compatible with Christianity? If so, the answer is yes. Or are you asking whether or not a naturalistic worldview is compatible with Christianity? To this the answer is no.

Hi again Bolder-dash Agreed. I find that I have certain beliefs. Curiously, I find that the best definition of a faith that fits these beliefs is Deism. Interestingly, I could tell you what I believe, but not why I believe. Like chocolate and the color green I can tell you that I like them but not why.Conceptually, I also like that Deism is not a formalized faith, where you need to be a card carrying member of some specific group that needs to approve your membership, as what I believe is independent on what anyone else believes (I don't think any real faith depends on membership, just on belief).One of these beliefs is that the evidence of creation is all around us, there to see and observe, and attempt to understand. Thus:

• the evidence that the earth orbits the sun spinning on it's inclined axis (and thus produces what we call days and seasons) is god/s way of telling flat-earthers and geocentrists that their belief in a flat or geocentric world is false. The evidence that the earth orbits the sun is massive and consistent, to the degree that very few (educated) people today believe that the earth is flat or the center of the universe, and
• the evidence of an old earth is likewise god/s way of telling YEC's that their belief in a young world is false. The evidence of old age is massive and consistent (see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1), to the degree that one must reject all scientific knowledge and assume that all evidence is intentionally false, which leads to the logical conclusion that any belief could then be considered true. In point of fact this evidence is more accessible than the evidence that a flat or geocentric world is false.
• the evidence that evolution is constantly occurring in the world around us (no known species is not evolving) is god/s way of telling special creationists that their belief in a special creation of specific species is false. The evidence that evolution constantly occurs and has occurred throughout known history, prehistory, and the paleontological record of the natural history of life on earth, is massive and consistent, to the degree that very few (scientifically educated) people today believe that evolution is false.
• etc etc etc

Any belief that is falsified by objective empirical evidence of reality is a false belief, IMNSHO, and thus should be discarded. This does not mean throwing out faith with the bathwater, just the beliefs that are contrary to reality.Beyond that, I believe that everyone has their own path to understanding the realities of life, the universe, etc. and thus telling anyone what I believe does not help them find their own path. Science can tell you (the mechanics of) how things happened, based on the objective empirical validated evidence, but cannot tell you (the purpose) why they happened.Evolution tells us (the mechanics of) how humans have evolved, based on the objective empirical validated evidence, but cannot tell you (the purpose) why humans evolved.The evidence tells you that it happened, and thus, as I said in Message 21:

quote:

---

The only real quibbles between the scientific interpretation of the universe and life and the (various) religious interpretations of religious texts are:

​

• how many species were first created (one or several)
• how life was\is created (the original life forms)
• whether evolution necessarily results in humans (ie humans are special in religion, intelligent life is special in science)

​

These are not quibbles with the science of evolution, but rather with the evidence of what has happened in the past. Whichever way these quibbles are sorted out, evolution remains a viable explanation of the diversity of life as we know it.

---

Either you accept that the objective scientifically validated evidence of reality is an accurate record of creation, or you believe that everything is illusion.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Theo, I really appreciate how you keep throwing me under the bus on this point. If you can quote me please do so, but I've never said that one can't believe in TE and not be a Christian at the same time....I may question it, but I my opinion won't count for a hill of beans in the end.And yes, thus far, with the def that jar has given of Christianity, I feel I have every right to question his "christianity".

Too funny.The definition I gave was of "Who could honestly call themselves a Christian"Of course you as well as anyone else has every right to question just about anything, however that is unrelated to the fact that I am a Christian.The real question is how can anyone consider themselves an Honest Christian and still not accept the fact of Evolution? Can they not see that they are committing and act of supreme hubris? How can any honest Christian try to teach Biblical Creationism without realizing that they are misusing the gifts of God and imposing ignorance on their children?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Well you seem to have been very supportive of the positions of Bolder, who clearly feels that it is not possible to be a christian and an "evolutionist".Your quotes in this thread. That seem to have been supportive of Bolder. You did make this comment, but I think your previous comments call this into question.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts