|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are theistic evolutionists really IDers? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The question in the title is whether theistic evolutionists are ID'ers, not whether theistic evolution is science - which isn't even mentioned in the OP. To repeat - yet again - my answer to the OP, classifying theistic evolutionists as ID'ers based on their belief in a creator is badly misleading for the reasons I've given.
And to answer your other question, off-topic as it is, I do not consider theistic evolution to be science (although it includes an acceptance of science with regard to evolution and more). Moreover, I do not recall hearing a theistic evolutionist claim otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Codegate Member (Idle past 845 days) Posts: 84 From: The Great White North Joined: |
Hey Rand - great question.
I take some issue with using 'theistic evolutionist' to describe the group you are discussing, as evolution and universe creation are two very different things, but I get where you are coming from. Now for my thoughts. If a person believes that:a) God created the universe b) God created the universe in such a way that he knew man would evolve Then I would say they are IDists since God explictly designed man (sure with a bunch of intermediate steps, but what's that to God) If a person believes that:a) God created the universe b) God created a universe that was condusive to life, but chose to not know how it was going to end up and that mankind is just what happened based on the initial rules God set. In this case, they are not IDists since mankind was not explicitly designed but a chance occurrence. It all comes down to what did God chose to know. If we believe in a God that created the universe, that God exists outside of time as we know it. It/He/She would be able to see the entirety of the universe, past, present and future if wanted. You say:
perhaps they are not teleological and think, for example, God perhaps didn't even know what would happen This is no different then a debate about free will. How can anyone possibly believe in free will? Perhaps THEY are not teleological and think, for example, God perhaps didn't even know what would happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
randman writes: Conversely, one could argue that there are no gaps at all, but that God is involved in every process. And the same indeeed can be argued for elves, and discussions about their level of involvent are fascinating. But I am not qualified to give an in depth analysis of errrrr.... well, I'm not a theist. It's for you theists to discuss. Really. isn't it? Whether or whether not God wields a vacuum cleaner is, after all, a question that his inventors should be dealing with, surely?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Is it a scientific view to claim God created the universe or not? It's not.
Moreover, if theistic evos believe God created the universe, on what basis do they believe the same Intelligent Designer would never intervene in the universe or in the formation of life on earth? As a TEist, I don't believe that god would never intervene. I do believe, however, that scientific explanations are sufficient to explain the things that we observe today. Burning Bushes.... not so much.
Is it just the faith of theistic evos to insist that God could only be effective in direct intervention at the beginning? I don't put limits on god's abilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
As a TEist, I don't believe that god would never intervene. I do believe, however, that scientific explanations are sufficient to explain the things that we observe today. So you have no objections in principle to looking for evidence God has intervened? That's fully acceptable for science and not a threat to science as so many claim? The only issue, I presume, is whether existing theory can explain all of the evidence which is a debate for other threads?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Why would someone who believes that have to join an anti-evolution movement ? (see my Message 23 in particular).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
It all comes down to what did God chose to know. It's interesting that the issue boils down then to a theological position.
This is no different then a debate about free will. How can anyone possibly believe in free will? Perhaps THEY are not teleological and think, for example, God perhaps didn't even know what would happen. I think you can believe in a measure of free will and an omniscient and omnipresent God, but that's for a different thread and a pretty complex issue. You are right that it's similar to this issue. The big problem with thinking God didn't know what would happen is that if you believe God exists apart from space-time, He can already see what's happening and to take it a step further, He could intervene and change it, in fact,.....perhaps "electing" some for salvation. But maybe we better save this line of thinking for a different thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So you have no objections in principle to looking for evidence God has intervened? Not really. Look all you want. I doubt you'll find anything, though.
That's fully acceptable for science and not a threat to science as so many claim? How is it a threat to science? Might be a threat to Positivism, but again, I doubt that anything will actually be found to prove god.
The only issue, I presume, is whether existing theory can explain all of the evidence which is a debate for other threads? Well, science works like a charm. I mean, here we are talking over the internet with computers. Do you think that computer science can explain all the evidence? Even if they can't, it doesn't seem to be hurting at all. The evidence that they are not seeing doesn't matter if it has no effect on anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Codegate Member (Idle past 845 days) Posts: 84 From: The Great White North Joined: |
Why would someone who believes that have to join an anti-evolution movement? They wouldn't. You are absolutely correct that the answer to this question depends on how you define IDist. I chose to go with what I consider 'literal' translation of intelligent designer; that is, a creator that knew what he wanted, designed it, and they either created it outright or created the exact conditions necessary for it to occur naturally. It unfortunate that the fundy movement has co-opted the ID concept and turned it into some anti-science position. From a philosophic position, the concept of an ID is quite interesting to discuss. However, now that it has this bastardized meaning it almost impossible to debate ID in it's 'pure' sense without evoking thoughts of something as inane as teaching ID in a science class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thy didn't so much hijack it as create it. THe modern use, as I say, was as a straight replacement for creationism - a rebranding exercise, essentially. They took the creationist text book they were working on and replaced "creationism" or "creation" with "intelligent design". Even to leaving the definition the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Problem is we can test computer science with actual products instead of hypothesizing about the past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So are you saying that it is non-scientific to be theistic evolutionist? That the theistic aspect of their beliefs here are just a faith statement and not real science? Where personal theistic beliefs and philosophies go beyond the realm of science they are not science. Sounds like a truism, eh? They can be theistic astronomers (Hoyle?) going beyond astronomy as well, the particular science is irrelevant. Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
So theistic evos believe the evidence supports the idea of no Designer but believe the universe was created by God anyway?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3265 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Well, for one thing, a "creator" doesn't have to be a "designer." There are quite a few things I create (mostly as a waste function) that I have absolutely no design in. So, just because someone belives in a creator, it does not imply that creator designed anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Yea, but in this case theistic evos believe God designed the universe. Now, they may or may not think He intended all the life forms and man to come into being, but the design of the universe is His deliberate creation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024