Theistic Evolution

For the time being I will accept for present purposes your description of theism, deism and atheism, but reserve the right to reopen the question if it becomes an issue of contention.I have no idea whether "ALL atheists accept and rabidly defend the Theory of Evolution." I suspect a great many of them have only the vaguest idea what the theory says and are no more "rapid" about it than anyone else. I believe you are correct that the evidence shows that most "evolutionists" believe in some supreme being.As far as accepting the resurrection miracle and the theory of evolution at the same time, I see no problem there whatsoever. The first is believed as a matter of religious faith, regardless of any scientific argument or evidence to the contrary. The second is the best explanation available for the evidence in the world around us about how life developed.There's no logical reason to suppose that because one believes in the miracle of resurrection one must believe in the special creation miracles. The first gets support from purported eyewitness accounts of a historical event. The second, at least in the eyes of most christians, is a poetic account of how the world came to be, created by people thousands of years ago who lacked the same information and scientific resources that we have available to us today. You seem to think that if one accepts that one miracle occurred, one must believe in all miracles that anyone describes. Let me ask you, do you believe in faith healers, psychic surgeons and levitation of yogis?You'll need to provide evidence to convince me that "TEists and Atheists agree on ORIGINS that a supernatural deity is not responsible for the appearance of design seen in reality." There's nothing in the least inconsistent with a christian "evolutionist" believing that science shows us how life evolved, but god is ultimately responsible for directing it all. From a strictly scientific point of view, there's no reason why life should have evolved into the exact forms that exist today, in particular humans. For a christian who believes we were created in god's image, it takes no stretch of the imagination at all to belive that god directed the course of evolution so that the end result would be in his image.You'll have to explain to me what "mortal worldview enemies" means before I can begin to respond to your claim. However, to the extent that you believe it's impossible for a christian to believe that science can reliably tell us things about the real world, the facts prove you demonstrably wrong.There's no need to explain why "TEists THINK they are Christians when their views and positions say they are not." What must be explained is why you seem to feel that anyone who doesn't believe each and every thing that YOU believe about christianity cannot be one.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Well, since I disclaimed knowledge to deny your unsupported statement, I'll plead guilty to inability to refute. I fail to see any connection between not knowing something and lacking logic or common sense. Here you leap to an unfounded conclusion. I am not having a relationship with Christ. I do not in fact believe that any miracle occurred. I was simply describing in a fashion that you did nothing to refute how a christian can believe in some mircles without believing in them all. Again, I ask you, do you believe in faith healers and psychic surgeons?In any event, you provide no basis for your implicit claim of inconsistency between the ToE and christianity beyond your mere claim of such. Obviously your understanding of the ToE is deeply flawed. Nothing in the ToE says that a supernatural deity is not responsible for evolution. The ToE, from a scientific point of view, proceeds on the basis that there is no evidence of such a diety, but this is not at all the same thing as claiming that the absense of a deity is established. I explained how a christian can believe that god is responsible for the particular life forms that do exist. You conveniently ignored that part. Do you have a response?I am neither uneducated nor a fundamentalist. You, however, have chosen to go down the road of personal insults. For that reason, if you do in fact choose not to respond further, I won't consider it a loss. I will, however, assume you don't have anything of substance to respond with.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Please find me one scientific paper or book that makes this claim.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

That some people have come to this conclusion says nothing about what the ToE itself actually says. Plenty of christians have stated that the bible provides support for racism, ethnic cleansing, and other atrocities. That don't make it so. Moreover, until you provide context for what you claim Wilson said, I don't know if he thinks that the conclusion follows logically from the evidence, or if that's simply a personal conclusion he came to for purposes of his own religious beliefs. If he thinks the conclusion follows logically, then I would disagree with him. As I stated above, all the ToE says is that it could have happened without divine guidance. That's no proof at all that it actually did happen without divine guidance. The typical response when one has nothing of substance to say. He, actually, but don't let the facts get in your way, you haven't yet. I didn't so much "refuse to acknowledge" anything, as I simply stated I didn't know. Can you back your claim up with evidence?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin, Chas, pub. November, 1859, initial price 15 shillings.In case you are not familiar with it, let me give you a summary.Organisms struggle for survival. More are created than can survive in a given environment. Some of those are better adapated to the environment than others, so they tend to live longer and produce more offspring. The organisms that are better adapted to survive will tend to pass on to their offspring those traits that better suit them to increased survivability. Over time, those traits that make organisms better suited to survivability will become more prevalant.Over long periods of time, conditions of survival will change. This will result in a change in organisms as the traits better suited to survivability change. As these changes become more pronounced, new species will emerge.Now, what you got?Edited by subbie, : Added precis.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I think it has been peer reviewed hundreds of times, thousands of times, tens of thousands of times.I see you didn't provide anything to back up your claims.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

The seminal work on the ToE is Origin. I see no particular point in finding more to support my claim unless and until you can show me where in Origin there is any claim that the ToE disproves god, or you show me some other scientific work, as opposed to some kind of social commentary, that makes the claim. In any event, I'm certainly not going to look for more until you give me something So far you've produced absolutely squat to back up your bogus contention.As far as whether the peer review process was the same in 1859 as it is today, that's probably true, but irrelevant. The bulk of the work that Darwin did in Origins has been tested and challegend many, many times. Not only has it survived these challenges, but subsequent discoveries that could never have been anticipated 150 years ago have given it greater weight.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Origin was not peer reviewed in the way that the peer review process works today because that process was not in place 150 years ago, so the comparison to Behe is meaningless. To discount Origin because it didn't comply with a procedure that wasn't even in place at the time is reaching a new low, even for a creo. Do you have anything of substance to say against it that's relevent to the point, or are you trying to advance your position on a meaningless criticism?I really don't see what your hang up is on Behe's book since it doesn't say that ToE excludes god anyway, so it's rather irrelevent to the point at issue. Moreover, the main point in Behe's book has been successfully refuted to the point that even Behe has backed away from it.If you can't find anything of substance to say, I see little reason to continue this discussion. If you want to claim victory because you haven't said anything, I guess you can go ahead and do that.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I admitted nothing of the sort, and if that's typical of the moronic sophistry that you think passes for debate, I'm wasting my time.You apparetnly have nothing to back up your claim, so I'll leave you to your playpen.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Please explain why 150+ years of validation does not equate to peer review.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

The validation that I am talking about is the general acceptance by the scientific community of the ideas in Origin. It is the same as the general acceptance that the peer review process is designed to achieve.You have been harping on peer review as though it's the sine qua non of any scientific analysis without apparently even considering the reason for the process. Peer review is an effort to ensure that a scientific analysis is reliable enough to be generally accepted by the scientific community. As the process works today, it is often considered an essential precursor to publication.This process was not in place in 1859, so Origin was not subjected to it prepublication. However, Origin has in essence undergone the same type of analysis, review, criticism and evaluation since its publication. It is now as generally accepted in the scientific community as any paper that anyone could now write.You refuse to accept this kind of post-publication reivew as equivalent to pre-publication peer review, but it appears that the only reason you do so is because you don't like the conclusions. It's obvious that you would reject for the same reasons any paper or book that was properly subjected to peer review. You couldn't care less about whether the scientific community generally accepts the work, and your reservations have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it was peer reviewed. Your repeated demands for a peer reviewed paper are a transparent red herring, apparently designed to distract from the fact that you have no response to the request for proof to back up your implied assertion that the ToE denies the existence of god, or that "plenty of scientists" make a scientific argument to the same effect.Your empty criticisms of the ToE have been answered repeatedly on this forum, and I see no need to rehash those tired misunderstandings.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

More red herrings, still no support for your own claim.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

That's sweet. It really is.But the topic of this thread is that the ToE is inconsistent with the idea of a god. It really has nothing to do with whether the theory is valid or not. Thus, your rejection is irrelevant.The foundational work of the ToE is Darwin's Origin. The second edition includes this statement:

quote:

---

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

---

So, unless you are hopelessly unable to stick to the topic of the thread, please address the claim that the ToE is inherently inconsistent with god, either as Darwin presented it, or as modified in any scientific work since.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I only brought in the issue of scientific papers to rule out you trying to support your claim with some nonsense creo tract that doesn't actually say what the ToE says. But if it makes you happy to blame me for taking us off topic first, I couldn't care less.Now that we are back on topic, do you have any support for the claim? This is the sixth time I have asked you to back up what you say. I think that's more than fair. I'm in no rush to get a response from you, so please take as much time as you like.However, absent a substantive reply, I will be forced to conclude that you realize you have no support for the ridiculous claim that the ToE is inconsistent in any fashion with the existence of god.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Well, since it's the topic of the thread, I guess I assumed you were supporting the claim. If I'm wrong, and you disagree with it, say so and we can put an end to this whole thing.I glanced at the thread about the Rose interview but didn't read it thoroughly. It appears that the interview is rather lengthy. It will take me some time to listen to it. In the meantime, do you have anything else, or is that the sum total of your evidence?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat