|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are theistic evolutionists really IDers? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
That could be. But now we need to define what ID means. If ID refers to solely designing the Universe, then you could say that TEists are IDists. However, the ID movement seems to say that an "Intelligent Designer" directly designed all of life, especially humans. If that is the definition of ID, then TEists would NOT agree with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
To clarify, let's start with Christians that believe God created the universe with the intent for man to evolve. I think such theistic evos are clearly IDers. They believe an Intelligent Designer (God) created the universe, and they have accepted teleological thinking in believing such a creation occured with the intent to create/evolve mankind. I think other theistic evos are likewise IDers, whether they realize or not, because they believe there is an Intelligent Force behind the creation and existence of the universe, but perhaps they are not teleological and think, for example, God perhaps didn't even know what would happen. But regardless, it strikes me as incedibly inconsistent and lacking self-awareness for evos that believe in God or some divinity to at the same time bash Intelligent Design since they themselves are IDers. Hi Rand. Welcome back. If the ID entity is Jehovah, god of the Bible, no way for the following reasons. 1. According to the scriptures the Biblical god is eternal to the past and to the future. Nearly all evolutionists are also Big Bangists as well which is temporal to the past. So they not only have the Genesis record to account for relative to evolution but how the universe came to be. Nothing they believe in relates to the ID Biblical account. 2. According to Gen 1, God made the first man, Adam in a day after the image of God himself and breathed life into him. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So theistic evos believe the evidence supports the idea of no Designer ... The apparent contradiction is in your strawman view of theistic evolution in particular and scientist of faith in general. Do you ever wonder, when you reach a contradictory conclusion, which of your precepts is false? People who believe in the evidence of gravity do not need to conclude that it "supports the idea of no designer ..." ... as it is just part of the natural behavior of matter. Someone -- say a deist for argument sake -- who believes in a created universe, does not feel that the natural behavior of matter, objects, organisms, etc, "supports the idea of no designer ... " ... rather that the designer set up those natural behaviors. And did such a good job that no further "tinkering" is required. The problem is that you are trying to equate such beliefs with a lesser version that is imperfect. I don't consider myself an "IDer" because ID, as generally practiced, is too limited a view that tries to pretend it is something that it isn't. 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 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Didn't see the relevance in anything you posted. Any theistic evos want to chime in on why and whether they see evidence for God, or are they just maintaining faith there is a God but all available evidence for the universe indicates there isn't...or there is....or what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
buzsaw, not getting into the question of biblical IDers.....nor the fact it is inconsistent to accept Darwinism and the Bible, though I agree with you that there are inconsistencies between NeoDarwinism and the Bible, but for me, there are inconsistencies between the view of science espoused by evos and belief in God at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Agreed but mainly I am getting at is that theistic evos are generally within the ID camp per the creation of the universe and yet many belittle ID as a threat to science or some such.
Seems mighty inconsistent to me....would like to hear how some theistic evos resolve that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But now we need to define what ID means. If ID refers to solely designing the Universe, then you could say ... That all religious beliefs are IDist. Even cupid is a "designer" in such a watered down concept. This is my objection to Randman's topic thesis: that it waters down the concept of ID until it is a useless concept in order to make everyone fit. At this point there is no way it can be considered a remotely scientific concept. You can't have it both ways. A less polite characterization is mental masturbation. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I agree. Randman seems to be trying to conflate two possible definitions of ID. Using one to show equality, then a different one to prove his point. I was trying to get him to state exactly what he defines ID as, so we can figure out exactly what his argument is saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Id is the belief that the universe can best be understood as the result of an Intelligent Cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Id is the belief that the universe can best be understood as the result of an Intelligent Cause. I thought ID was a branch of science, not a belief. Are you telling me that I have been mislead?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Under that definition, then yes, most theologies would seem to be a form of ID. As such, it is not a science, it is a belief.
Unfortunately, that is not the type of ID being espoused by the ID movement in America. It is this movement that is anti-science. It is this movement that is trying to force its way into science class and erode confidence in evolution among the next generation of Americans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
It is this movement that is anti-science. How is it anti-science and yet theistic evos are pro-science? Is belief in evolution the arbiter between what is genuine science and what is not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I forget I am dealing with quibblers. Substitute "hypothesis" for "belief" to get the picture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Randman writes: buzsaw, not getting into the question of biblical IDers.....nor the fact it is inconsistent to accept Darwinism and the Bible, though I agree with you that there are inconsistencies between NeoDarwinism and the Bible, but for me, there are inconsistencies between the view of science espoused by evos and belief in God at all. But your OP seems to be about Biblical IDers and other references to God in the OP seem to relate to the Biblical god. There are many gods worshipped in the world, a number of which were not related to creationism at all.
OP writes: To clarify, let's start with Christians that believe God created the universe with the intent for man to evolve. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Buzz, I am talking of theistic evos, probably most that believe in some aspects of the Bible, but they probably don't all accept the Bible as wholly the word of God.
I wanted to start with Christians that believe God intended for man to evolve and so evolution is the creative mechanism of God because such a belief is clearly teleological, and yet theistic evos have criticisms of teleology. This is an inconstistency. But the same applies to Jewish, Muslim or even Deists if they think God knew and intended man to be created via evolution.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024