Theistic Evolution

You fail to realize that the foundational principles of ToE are not represented by scientific papers, but assumptions guiding scientific papers. However, plenty of scientists like Wilson have stated the basic same thing Herepton says of the significance of Darwin...."that there is no Creator."

Please cite the seminal, peer-reviewed papers establishing the basic claims of ToE.Also, there was a whole thread on Wilson and the Rose interview on PBS. Guess you missed it.

LOL. So you think that was peer-reviewed?I suppose Behe's book counts then, right?

Then it should be easy for you to cite the seminal papers in a peer-reviewed journal that substantiate and present the basic claims of ToE.Please do.Btw, there was a thread on this awhile back, and the general concensus was that acceptance of ToE occurred without and prior to the peer-reviewed process as we know it today. In other words, you are making a claim that even the evos here largely admit is not the case.But hey, go ahead......show us the papers.

That's not a peer-reviewed publication. I ask again: are you ready then to accept Behe's book as a peer-reviewed publication since plenty of his peers have read it as well?Or are there different standards for evos and IDers?

So you admit that there has been no peer-reviewed process to validate the claims of ToE?Thanks.Maybe this is why so many false claims have been accepted by evo scientists over the years, claims such as:Microevolution equals macroevolution.The fossil record shows evolution.the Biogenetic Law.Natural selection is a realistic agent of macroevolution.Neanderthals were a missing link between men and apes or the mythical hominid common ancesor.etc, etc,...

You cannot show any peer-reviewed papers to validate the basic claims of ToE, and yet you insist otherwise.All I am asking is that you back up your claims. You presented Darwin and now admit this was not peer-reviewed. Are you trying to claim it was peer-reviewed prior to publication or what?Why not just admit that there are no real peer-reviewed papers to establish and validate the basic claims of ToE. ToE is an assumption within papers, but the assumption itself has not been subject to peer-review.

What validation? You mean faked data and concepts like Haeckel's forgeries and the Biogenetic law? Or how about the assumption, totally unproven, that microevolution is the same as macroevolution or can add up to macroevolution?There is no validation whatsoever to ToE since acceptance of ToE is the basis for interpreting data to support ToE.Heck, the real bottom line is the final arbiter should be the fossils, hard data, which unequivocally demonstrate no gradualistic macroevolution whatsoever.

Except this acceptance was acheived quite often with outright falsity instead of a scientifically reliable process. Except that it hasn't. Most the claims used to bring about acceptance of Darwinism were false, and when those claims are finally subjected to scientific scrutiny, such as with Haeckel, they have been shown to be wrong, and yet the theory itself continues to be presented as somehow validated despite their being no reasonable, scientific validation process.In fact, I am not sure there is one bit of data that anyone knows for sure really supports Darwinism. Certainly, the fossil data is not supportive of Darwinism.

No, the red herring is, as usual for most evos, when confronted with facts, you try to divert the conversation by making up false accusations about the other person's motives. The truth is I reject Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, however you want to say it, because it is not fact-based, plain and simple.

Um, need I remind you that you brought up the issue of scientific papers, not me?LOLBut when it's pointed out to you that the claims of Darwin were not brought up via scientific papers, you retreat to complaining this is off-topic? Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Actually that's total BS since you brought the issue up prior to me even posting on this thread.As far as backing up my claims, I have backed them all up. Are you referring to the Watson and Wilson interview on Charlie Rose? You stated this: Sounds like you are one confused puppy, subbie. Show where I made that claim here, please.I will say, however, that evos do twist logic to reject any inclusion of God as causal for what we observe as reality, and that they do so arbitrarily.

subbie, that sum total is a lot more evidence than you have bothered to have supplied. Moreover, you posted a lot of false crap about just responding to me when I hadn't even posted on the thread and entered the thread to correct a point.Personally, I think a Christian can believe in ToE, as I once did myself, but the more I looked into the facts backing up evolution, the more I saw a bunch of distortions, hoaxes, overstatements, and frauds were the "evidence" for ToE and realized it was a sham.I do agree with Herepton that evolutionism is rooted in atheist philosophy by a priori excluding by definition God as a causal agent, and so I think it's bogus crap. But it could be possible to develop a theory of God being the cause of evolution, and creating in that manner. There are even parts of the Bible suggestive of abiogenesis and evolution such as "Let the waters bring forth", but I think if one goes down that path, it must be considered a variation of Intelligent Design.In fact, theistic evolution is really a form of ID.Of course, there are severe, illogical problems with some of the ideas of theistic evos (for example, jar here claimed that God created the universe and somehow suggested though the imperfection we see in biological life suggests that sort of just happened or some such when logically, God would have created evolution as well, and so planned on that imperfection deliberately).But my basic beef with evos are their inherent hypocrisy in claiming to be a fact-based instead of faith-based belief system when the opposite is the case. They are interpreting the facts based on their faith in evolutionism.

Not to be contrarian, but that's not really where I am coming from. The truth is I object to this line of thinking altogether on several grounds; one being that we really should not consider in science what God would think of as "perfect", at least not at this stage.I think the best and only reasonable conclusion for considering the ideas of a good God and reality is the story in the Bible of our reality being subject to suffering due to the Fall, but all that takes a good bit of time to discuss. Suffice to say, it seems to me that objecting to the notion of a Designer based on the fact that the current design is imperfect from our vantage point is really injecting one's personal theology into a scientific debate and is inappropiate.So you can see that really I don't think science and the data speak to this issue at all, one way or another. I actually do think God is creating perfection, but it's a process which of necessity contains a level of what we call suffering and imperfection to bring out a particularly special beauty and perfection not possible otherwise, namely the beauty of love that is tested. Well, sort of. The more I looked at ToE, I considered it contradictory because of it's basic untruthfulness, and also considered it contradictory in it's logic. I also must admit that I was not sure if ToE really was totally harmonious, but could reconcile some ideas within ToE with the Bible. I did not object to the an old earth based on the Bible because I think the Bible can and probably should be interpreted based on an old earth, and there are other things about ToE that I think the Bible is sufficiently vague to harmonize with ToE and even some parts of the Bible very strongly supportive of ToE such as Genesis speaking of water and the earth bringing forth life, but the more I looked at how ToE approached data, the more it seemed like propaganda to me. Well, that was because I just believed evolutionism was based on objective science. The more I learned about how evos treated data, such as that their approach rules out God as causal a priori, the more I rejected ToE as invalid and propaganda. Well, first your first statement is wrong since the first life form could not have arrived via descent with modification. It's no use to say that is separate from ToE because that also makes the statement wrong since ToE does not explain life on this planet, but just lays out the potential for how life developed after life came to this planet.Secondly, as is amply clear by evos' objecting to ID theory, evolutionism does reject the concept that God can be causal to life developing and being here on this planet. That idea is considered a threat to science and as unscientific by evos, by definition.Thirdly, ToE does not match the facts. We don't see macroevolution in the fossil record. So ToE does not explain life on this planet because it doesn't match the facts. Descent with modification has not been shown to account for macroevolution, and in fact, what we do observe about descent with modification is that it is a strong deterrent to macroevolution, creating a variation within a range rather than what evos predicted.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Who says? There is a ton of evidence for it. Heck, there is nothing but evidence for it. The reason some reject ID is that they deny consideration of God is valid in the first place.Note your comment: You guys define God as supernatural and then say science cannot by definition consider any supernatural agents and then claim you are being objective. There is no objectivity here on the part of evos. You say there is no evidence because you define all evidence as automatically excluding God by definition. If that's the case, then why do scientists and evo advocates make dumb comments like a personal God is not real because of science, or that "there is no Designer" due to design imperfections, etc, etc,....The truth is evos are injecting your religious views into science all the time if you ask me.