Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 119 (8778 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-18-2017 12:22 PM
363 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: BruceR.Fenton
Post Volume:
Total: 816,328 Year: 20,934/21,208 Month: 1,367/2,326 Week: 703/345 Day: 65/161 Hour: 6/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Theistic Evolution
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3529
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 16 of 76 (2675)
01-22-2002 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Minnemooseus
01-21-2002 11:45 AM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
The evolution/creation debate has long been polarized as evolution versus fundimentalist creationist anti-evolutionism.

It is often aserted by the evolution side, that many view evolution and Christian religion (and creationism?) to be something that can co-exist.

This thread attempts to explore such middle ground. Of course, this still runs against the beliefs of the fundimentalists.

I would be interested to hear from the Christian evolutionist side, as to what they find to be a suitable "flavor" of creationism.

Moose


I guess my intent really is to address this topic to the people of the evolution side. The fundimentalist creationist side is naturally opposed to theistic evolution as it includes a substantial acceptance of evolution.

So, evolution side, what do you think of theistic evolution?

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-22-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-21-2002 11:45 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by nator, posted 01-23-2002 1:37 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 19 by TrueCreation, posted 01-25-2002 6:56 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 2138 days)
Posts: 12961
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 76 (2691)
01-23-2002 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Minnemooseus
01-22-2002 9:25 PM


I have no problem with theistic evolution. It is the most logical way to believe in God, IMO.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-22-2002 9:25 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 76 (2778)
01-25-2002 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by nator
01-22-2002 3:28 PM


"Evolution, and science in general, does not address religion or God or the supernatural at all. If everyone in a science classroom was Hindu or Bhuddist, would it be OK to teach science, but not if everyone is Protestant Fundamentalist Christian?"
--I was not addressing science, I was addressing the ToE as it is perpertrated as the FoE (Fact of Evolution) no matter in what scence, they say there are many theories on how it happened, but they say that it Did happen. Science is Great, I love science, otherwize I would be in no place to be in this discussion, and even enjoy it.

"Science is the naturalistic explanations of naturalistic phenomena. That's it."
--Exactly

"Should The Atomic Theory of Matter, The Germ Theory of Disease, or Gravitational Theory not be taught in schools, because if some religious sects feel that the teaching of these subjects "discredits God"?"
--Again I was not asserting against Science, but against the ToE. These theories you propose discredit God in no way or, known to me, sercumstance, its the way they teach it, as I have first hand experience as I am still inhereting public school education.

"Pure Bull, TC, this is pure sour-grapes bull."
--I would suspect a response such as this.

"Creation "science" is religiously-based and it's fundamental tennets are based not upon evidence and observation, but upon faith that a particular interpretation of a particular part of a particular chapter in Genesis is correct, with no evidence ever changing that.
--I would advise reading of my posted literature, as you have unsuccessfully proved this wrong, and even in your attempts to make it as you say, I have proved it wrong as one of the few that you can actually 'prove' as I have to the degree of this posted time in our converstion. Are you at all interested in the facts or are you only interested in your own pre-conceived belief on creation science, you would be successful if you accused creationism, but not creation science, as it is purely scientific in natural phenomenal explinations.

------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-25-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nator, posted 01-22-2002 3:28 PM nator has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 76 (2779)
01-25-2002 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Minnemooseus
01-22-2002 9:25 PM


"I guess my intent really is to address this topic to the people of the evolution side. The fundimentalist creationist side is naturally opposed to theistic evolution as it includes a substantial acceptance of evolution.

So, evolution side, what do you think of theistic evolution?"
--I agree, but would this inquire discussion?
--If someone is a theistic bible believing evolutionist, then I am glad to hear that, at least they are believers of the biblical fundementals, and don't let me stray you another direction in believing scripture, as long as your on the foundation.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-22-2002 9:25 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 76 (15666)
08-19-2002 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
01-19-2002 3:12 PM


Another critique... That version of theistic evolution is evolution synthesized with Christianity. I know that the largest opponents of evolution are Christian creationists, but that does not mean that such a religion-science synthesis should be restricted to Christianity. It is just one of the major religions. What about others? Judaism? Islam? Could they be included in theistic evolution or should every religion & cult develop their own version of theistic evolution?

Or, should we agree to keep religion outside evolution?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-19-2002 3:12 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 76 (15673)
08-19-2002 8:00 AM


For whatever reason theistic evolutionists rarely reveal their hand. (Please feel free to make a liar of me ).

For many I think they simply have decided the issue is not important.

IMO many theistic evolutionists dislike the topic because they realise the two don't really mix. I suspect many would want to give God a lot more guiding power than they would like talking about in front of an evoltuionist. Does a theistic evoltuionist really get that many browny points if he still believes God prodded things along the way? Man evolved speech not becasue of duplicated genes randomly mutating but becuase God mutated them??

On the other hand other theistic evoltuionists realise that what they're saying makes them so evoltuioinary that they almost start wondering about any of Scripture. Where they draw the line becomes an uncomfortable issue they would rather not think about - creation, flood, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Daniel, Jesus, Paul . . .

These are my impressions.


Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by edge, posted 08-19-2002 9:11 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Flamingo Chavez, posted 10-03-2003 11:00 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3904
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 22 of 76 (15720)
08-19-2002 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tranquility Base
08-19-2002 8:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
For whatever reason theistic evolutionists rarely reveal their hand. (Please feel free to make a liar of me ).

For many I think they simply have decided the issue is not important.

IMO many theistic evolutionists dislike the topic because they realise the two don't really mix. I suspect many would want to give God a lot more guiding power than they would like talking about in front of an evoltuionist. ...


On the other hand, they might recognize the rain of criticism they they can expect from some hard-core YECs. It seems there is a special place in hell for theistic evolutionists, somewhere well below your run-of-the-mill evolutionists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-19-2002 8:00 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3818
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 23 of 76 (41990)
06-03-2003 3:48 AM


Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.

Bumped for the possible consideration of johndcal, who has been posting a few theistic evolution related topics.

Moose (minnemooseus with a little help from Adminnemooseus)

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-03-2003]


    
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 76 (41991)
06-03-2003 4:59 AM


Indeed, and as a paid up theistic evolutionist...

There are two reasons not many of us "show our hand".

One is the response we get from some YECS. Many of them seem to think it's impossible for us to exist. It upsets their simplistic "Evolution=Atheism=Bad" vs "Creationism=Christianity=Good" worldview, and this manifests in hostility. There are some exceptions - some folks here, Optional from OCR (RIP), and the more the merrier.

This simplistic worldview manifests itself in the interchangability of "evolutionist" and "atheist" in many YEC posters' contributions; in the assumption that evolutionists do not believe in God (some do, some don't), and the strong belief that if they convert one to Christianity, that person would also reject evolution. What they blatantly fail to see is that it is this perceived requirement to reject good science that makes a barrier - not the barrier, but a barrier - between the scientist and faith. No rational person is going to adopt a model of faith that is "believing what you know isn't true".

The second reason is that it's the YECs who really care about it. Because of the forementioned simplistic worldview, defending YEC is defending the gospel. But for those of us not tied to literalism, it's a complete non-issue. One can be a Christian regardless of one's position on evolution. The interest in evolution amongst non creationist Christians is about the same as the interest in it in the public at large - passing. Science may be a big thing to me, but it's not to most people.

I was interested to read back (aware that this thread started over a year ago) the following:

quote:
He's full in for evolution, just with God to fill in all the gaps of origins and the problems with evolution by saying 'goddidit' and that it was all 'miracles' which is what creation science (because it is science) avoids.

Wrong. Theistic evolutionists as a rule are firmly opposed to 'God of the Gaps' fallacies. There is no part of my understanding of the origin of life or biodiversity that I relegate to "Goddidit", except in the general sense that I believe that all of it is "Goddidit". Science's role is telling me how He did. I do, with all scientists, relegate some questions to "I don't know."

[This message has been edited by Karl, 06-03-2003]


  
emotional
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 76 (46521)
07-19-2003 5:53 PM


Greetings all.

I'm a Deist. I adhere to theistic evolution: the parameters for evolution were set at Creation 15 billion years ago, and since then evolution has been running freely.

I see no contradiction between evolution and a Deistic concept of God. I, do, however, see a contradiction between evolution and classical theism, and foremostly between evolution and Christianity.

Classical theism holds that God is sovereign over His creation, intervenes in the history of His creation. Evolution, which means a blind, ruthless operation of natural law, puts such a god out of the picture. The God of evolution is the God of Natural Law - the God of Deism, not of theism.

As for Christianity, it relies on the literal truth of Genesis in order to function. There must be a literal Adam and Eve who ate a literal fruit from the literal Garden of Eden so that a literally resurrected Jesus should save from a literal hell.

The main theme of Christianity is that death is an enemy ("The Last Enemy"), an intruder into a previously perfect world. Evolution refutes this: death is the natural order of things. The theme of Christianity is Christ's triumph over this enemy called death. If death is the natural order of things - and that is what evolution means - then there was nothing for Christ to triumph over, and Christianity is reduced to a meaningless mythology.

I hope this has provided some food for thought about faith and evolution.

[This message has been edited by emotional, 07-19-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by doctrbill, posted 07-19-2003 10:21 PM emotional has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 260 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 26 of 76 (46530)
07-19-2003 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by emotional
07-19-2003 5:53 PM


Perhaps because I am atheist, I'm a bit confused by your statement.
quote:
I'm a Deist. I adhere to theistic evolution:
Why not call it Deistic Evolution?
quote:
the parameters for evolution were set at Creation 15 billion years ago, and since then evolution has been running freely.
You mean, without the Deity?
quote:
Evolution, which means a blind, ruthless operation of natural law, puts such a god [theistic] out of the picture. The God of evolution is the God of Natural Law - the God of Deism, not of theism.
Does this mean that Deists view God as blind and ruthless?

And, just out of curiosity: Of what value is a god which is not sovereign and doesn't intervene?

db

------------------
"If God created Nature, then the Law of Nature is the Law of God."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by emotional, posted 07-19-2003 5:53 PM emotional has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Peter, posted 07-21-2003 5:23 AM doctrbill has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 260 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 27 of 76 (46531)
07-19-2003 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Minnemooseus
01-19-2002 5:36 PM


quote:
How can one be certain that the Bible "cannot be wrong", when "fallible humans" have been involved in it's production?
One can't, of course. The old King James Version of the Bible, for example, is considered by many to be the only true translaton (even though its inadequacies are easy to demonstrate). It has, in fact, been radically altered for English readers in many ways. One of the changes removed the name Jesus from at least two places and substituted the name Joshua. Not a serious problem for Bible scholars, but potentially devastating for a true believer with no charlatan ... errr ... pastor, to hold his hand and talk him through a crisis of faith. Faith in translators actually. A faith which may be limited to one particular scholar, or scholars on the payroll of a particular religious denomination.

The next step then, for proponents of inerrancy, is to claim that the "original documents" contain no mistakes. This is a convenient dodge, since there are NO ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. And, there are literally thousands of manuscripts from antiquity; but they are all different; not one completely agrees with the others.

db


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-19-2002 5:36 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 07-20-2003 12:21 PM doctrbill has responded

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 76 (46545)
07-20-2003 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by doctrbill
07-19-2003 10:46 PM


And, there are literally thousands of manuscripts from antiquity; but they are all different; not one completely agrees with the others.

You don't know how many conflicting reports I've heard about the consistency of old manuscripts. Where did you get your information? Seems like everyone and their dog has a different story. I'd like to see these manuscripts. Then again most scholars who open their traps about this haven't seen them either.

------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by doctrbill, posted 07-19-2003 10:46 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 07-20-2003 12:27 PM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded
 Message 30 by doctrbill, posted 07-20-2003 5:19 PM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8790
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 29 of 76 (46547)
07-20-2003 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by funkmasterfreaky
07-20-2003 12:21 PM


Manuscripts
This sounds like a new topic. Could the next person who wants to deal with it start that up?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 07-20-2003 12:21 PM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 260 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 30 of 76 (46583)
07-20-2003 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by funkmasterfreaky
07-20-2003 12:21 PM


quote:
Where did you get your information?
From a website posted by a man who is translating parts of the New Testament.

Here's what he says:

"... the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the four gospels which we do have available to us today all differ from one another. Consequently there is need not only for translation, but also need to decide from which of the thousands of Greek text variants to translate. " ... "I also believe in the inspiration of scripture by God. The problem is, if God preserved his word perfectly to the letter, in which of the 5,000+ manuscripts is it preserved, since not one is identical to the other?"

Excerpted from: Bible Translations - Why are there so many differences? http://www.ilovejesus.com//school/hologos/

db


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 07-20-2003 12:21 PM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by NosyNed, posted 07-20-2003 7:03 PM doctrbill has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017