|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Theistic Evolutionist An Oxymoron? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Your point?? Oh, you didn't see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Meldinoor writes:
Hello Buz,It occurs to me that it's been quite a while since we both took part in a discussion. I think it's because you tend to gravitate toward theology/prophecy discussions while I spend most of my time in the science fora. So how've you been? Hi Meldinoor. Things have been well with me an mine. I hope so with you and yours as well. Thanks for weighing in here. I apologize for misspelling your username in the OP. I have corrected it. There are really a lot of you theistic evolutionists around. I've always wondered how you folks can possibly reconcile Biblical theism and evolution since if the Genesis record is mythical, so must the other tenets of Biblical theism also set forth in the same Biblical record be mythical.
Meldinoor writes: Technically, since I am both a theist and an evolutionist, that makes me a "theistic evolutionist". However, I am reluctant to use this term to describe myself as it implies a conflation of the two terms that I think is misleading. Conflated ideologies share some similar characteristics as I understand the term. What, pertaining to Biblical theism, shares characteristics with ToE? They appear to be oxymoronic, contradicting one another, the one advocating naturalistic secularism and the other advocating intelligent design and the supernatural.
Meldinoor writes: My being a theist should not influence how I read the evidence nor give me cause to make unsupported assumptions about a scientific theory. Neither does the fact that I accept the theory of evolution influence my faith in God.It's like making a distinction between "theistic mathematicians" and "mathematicians". There's no reason to believe that the two groups do their math differently, so the distinction is irrelevant. Shouldn't Biblical theism determine what premise you apply in determining interpretation of observed phenomena?
Meldinoor writes: Buzsaw writes:
I see it as a vain attempt to gain the best of both ideologies; that of secularisim which essentially absolves one from contradicting establishment scientific academia and that of theism which offers a purpose for existence and a hope of a blissful existence beyond this life. But you're wrong. I do not see how merely accepting the theory of evolution influences one's ideology. The ToE does not tell me how to live my life, or influence my moral or political decisions. I don't contest that to some people it might. Perhaps for some people "evolutionism" really is deserving of that -ism, and perhaps some people really can make a religion or an ideology out of it. Social Darwinism comes to mind, which I guess is an ideology, but that's taking the ToE out of the realm of science and using it to justify political actions. The problem is that there is a whole lot in the Biblical record, from which I assume to be the primary source of your theism, besides morality and politics. It's allegedly the record of origins as per intelligent design rife with supernatural phenomena from prophecy to miracles, all oxymoronically contradictory to ToE and the BB etc.
Meldinoor writes: My theism OTOH has an impact on my life and does influence my decisions and ideology. So my faith and my acceptance of the ToE have no bearing on each other, just as my belief in the existence of carrots does not influence my belief in God. You're convincing yourself that they are compatable when they're not. you're deluding yourself by ignoring the contradictions which you appear to be sweeping under the proverbial rug, so as to hope for the blessings of Biblical theism while denying the majority of what the Bible contains. Theistic evolutionists appear to view life as a super smorgasboard of sorts, picking and choosing only what satisfies their preconceptions as acclaimed theists. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
ringo writes: You seem to be confusing "theistic" with "Buzsawistic". It's the same mistake as saying there are no Canadian republicans because we don't have a Republican Party. This is a strawman, my point being that the Biblical god, Jehovah is an intelligent designer, contradictory to the ToE. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
This is a strawman, my point being that the Biblical god, Jehovah is an intelligent designer, contradictory to the ToE.
a. Your interpretation of christianity is contradictory to the ToE, not all interpretations.2. Not all theistic evolutionists are christians. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
It isn't a strawman. You used the word "theistic", which does not refer to the Biblical god at all. You can't redefine "oxymoron" based on a redefinition of "theistic". ringo writes:
This is a strawman, my point being that the Biblical god, Jehovah is an intelligent designer, contradictory to the ToE. You seem to be confusing "theistic" with "Buzsawistic". It's the same mistake as saying there are no Canadian republicans because we don't have a Republican Party. You might be able to claim that "Biblical evolutionist" or even "Christian evolutionist" is an oxymoron but not "theistic evolutionist". Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
PaulK writes: The more common interpretation is that the term refers to the belief that God set up the universe so that it's ordinary operations bring about the desired results. While this view is consistent with Deism it does not rule out intervention in human history so it cannot be said that it is opposed to theism. And it fully accepts evolutionary theory, so this reading is certainly not oxymoronic. Paul, you, Jar, Meldinoor and a host of other professing theist evolutionis all have the same problem. You all try to apply a pseudo-Biblcal theism, all the while denying everything supernatural in the record which happens to be most of the book, supernatural aspects being tenets of all 66 books of the Bible. You're all deluding yourselves into professing Biblical theism when in fact you insult/blaspheme Jehovah, the Biblical designer, reducing his holy book to the status of mythology. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
ringo writes: It isn't a strawman. You used the word "theistic", which does not refer to the Biblical god at all. You can't redefine "oxymoron" based on a redefinition of "theistic". Ringo, have you been reading me? All through this thread I have alluded to the term, Biblical theism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
nwr writes: Really, that's just silly. Secularism is a matter of keeping religious bias out of administrative matters. It does not imply atheism What's really silly is to keep the ID Biblical record out of Biblical theism. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
bluescat writes: Why would a creationist deity be oxymoronic, just because it goes against your belief in the Abrahamic god and your scripture? I think you keep forgetting that belief is not evidence. What ToE goes against is Biblical theism as set forth in the Biblical record rife with ID and the supernatural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buz writes: Paul, you, Jar, Meldinoor and a host of other professing theist evolutionis all have the same problem. You all try to apply a pseudo-Biblcal theism, all the while denying everything supernatural in the record which happens to be most of the book, supernatural aspects being tenets of all 66 books of the Bible. Once again, what you post is simply not true. I do not deny everything supernatural in the stories that make up the Bible. Lots of the supernatural incidents mentioned in the Bible are things I cannot even have an opinion on, there's not enough information to confirm or deny. Others like the special creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 or the Biblical Flood or Exodus or Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshuah are patently false; simply myth and folk tales.
Buz writes: You're all deluding yourselves into professing Biblical theism when in fact you insult/blaspheme Jehovah, the Biblical designer, reducing his holy book to the status of mythology. But even if that happened to be true, it is irrelevant to the topic. Am I a theist? Yes! Do I believe that GOD created all that is, seen and unseen? Yes. Do I understand that the diversity we see around us is the result of the fact of Evolution and that the Theory of Evolution is not just the best explanation for the diversity we see, it is the ONLY model that has been presented? Yes! Don't think for a second that mythology isn't important, it is. In fact mythology can be more influential than factual history. And of course, Jehovah is nothing more than a human creation that resulted from spelling errors. To think otherwise is to blaspheme GOD and the Holy Spirit. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin and worsern gramer Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Buzsaw writes:
Nobody is doing that, as far as I know. People are only trying to keep ID out of the science classroom.
What's really silly is to keep the ID Biblical record out of Biblical theism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
That's irrelevant. You still don't get to redefine words. Ringo, have you been reading me? All through this thread I have alluded to the term, Biblical theism. What you're trying to say is that No True Biblical Theist can accept evolution - but that has nothing to do with oxymorons. An oxymoron depends on the real definition of the word, not your made-up one. Maybe you should rename the thread to reflect your No True Scotsman fallacy instead of your misunderstanding of oxymorons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
What ToE goes against is Biblical theism as set forth in the Biblical record rife with ID and the supernatural. So why if a person chooses to accept that there is a god can't this person also accept evolution. Many Theists accept that the creation story in Genesis is no more than, at best, an allegory. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I know I've posted this before but you might have missed it. I think you are trying to read holy scripture in a way that was never intended. The following is a quote from CS Lewis.
quote: Edited by GDR, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4839 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Buzsaw writes: I've always wondered how you folks can possibly reconcile Biblical theism and evolution since if the Genesis record is mythical, so must the other tenets of Biblical theism also set forth in the same Biblical record be mythical. Not necessarily. Most people who have read the Bible will agree that it contains segments that are undeniably allegorical and/or mythical. That doesn't mean that it's all myth. Also, just because portions of the Bible may be legend and myth does not mean that they're less important than the historically accurate records in there. The Genesis account conveys God's role as the Creator of all that is, His relationship to humanity, our fallen nature etc. Even if the myth is not literally true, the underlying message is still there. I would argue that these lessons are far more important to the Christian faith, than the trivial details of how God went about Creation.
Buzsaw writes: Conflated ideologies share some similar characteristics as I understand the term. What, pertaining to Biblical theism, shares characteristics with ToE? But I was just saying that, to me at least, the ToE is NOT an ideology. It does not share "characteristics" with theism, because we're comparing apples and oranges here.I'm tempted to quote Galileo here to make my point: quote: Of course, the Bible teaches much more than just how to go to heaven, but it was never intended as a science book. To view it in that manner over-trivializes it and distracts from the more important lessons it contains.
Buzsaw writes: Shouldn't Biblical theism determine what premise you apply in determining interpretation of observed phenomena? I'm sorry, but the truth is far too precious to me to make me want to twist the facts to fit a just-so interpretation of an allegorical text. If I espoused creationism I would be dishonest, as I can see no way to make the evidence fit your view on creation. And I would rather be honest and wrong, than dishonest and right.If you could show me how all the evidence supported your "theory" better than the ToE, I'd come around in a heartbeat. But to consciously ignore the truth would be an act of dishonesty toward myself, toward God, and toward my fellow humans. Buzsaw writes: The problem is that there is a whole lot in the Biblical record, from which I assume to be the primary source of your theism, besides morality and politics. It's allegedly the record of origins as per intelligent design rife with supernatural phenomena from prophecy to miracles, all oxymoronically contradictory to ToE and the BB etc. Did I say I didn't believe in miracles? I do. In fact, I may even have experienced a few myself. And by the way, how is the creation of a universe with all the laws and constants capable of producing life less miraculous than a six day creation? Come on, Buz. I never said I didn't believe in a miraculous Creation. I just think that Creation was much grander and more in line with the evidence than your theory of creation. Be careful not to conflate evolution with atheism or secularism.
Buzsaw writes: You're convincing yourself that they are compatable when they're not. you're deluding yourself by ignoring the contradictions which you appear to be sweeping under the proverbial rug, so as to hope for the blessings of Biblical theism while denying the majority of what the Bible contains. I don't think the ToE is compatible with a literal reading of the genesis account. But when you read Genesis as an inspired myth, there are no longer any contradictions. All of the core tenets of Genesis are compatible with evolution. Let's take a look at them: 1. God created everything (compatible)2. God chose the human species to be made "in his image" spiritually (compatible) 3. Humanity fails to live up to God's standards (compatible) 4. God promises to redeem humanity (compatible) None of these are contradicted by evolution (they all fall outside the realm of modern science).
Buzsaw writes: You're all deluding yourselves into professing Biblical theism when in fact you insult/blaspheme Jehovah, the Biblical designer, reducing his holy book to the status of mythology. Harsh and judgmental words, Buz. I think, if you carefully re-read our posts, you'll find that you've misrepresented us gravely. Understanding that parts of the Bible were never meant to be taken literally does not reduce it to a pile of horseshit. I have the same respect for the Bible that you do, but I worship God, not the Bible. Hence Christian, not Biblian. Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024