Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 10:01 AM
22 online now:
NosyNed (AdminNosy), PurpleYouko, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,633 Year: 3,670/19,786 Month: 665/1,087 Week: 34/221 Day: 5/29 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Author Topic:   Are theistic evolutionists really IDers?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2978 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 16 of 91 (468339)
05-29-2008 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by RAZD
04-25-2008 8:04 PM


Re: Where I stand
I don't think any "theistic evo" here or elsewhere would be concerned about ID discussions in philosophy or comparative religion classes: the question comes down to whether we are talking about science in science classes or trying to talk about something that is non-science.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 04-25-2008 8:04 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 05-29-2008 10:08 PM randman has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 17 of 91 (468340)
05-29-2008 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by randman
05-29-2008 2:24 AM


Re: back to the thread topic
quote:

The topic is not about the fact ID theories espoused by the Discovery Institute are different than theistic evos. That is obvious.

So, you are saying that theistic evolutionists are obviously NOT ID'ers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 2:24 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 2:35 AM PaulK has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2978 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 18 of 91 (468341)
05-29-2008 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
05-29-2008 2:33 AM


Re: back to the thread topic
No, theistic evos are IDers. They believe an Intelligent Force/Designer aka God created the universe. They believe God designed/created the universe. It's a clear belief in an Intelligent Designer.

What part of that isn't clear?

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2008 2:33 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2008 2:43 AM randman has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 19 of 91 (468344)
05-29-2008 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by randman
05-29-2008 2:35 AM


Re: back to the thread topic
How can Dembski say that ID is "no friend of theistic evolution" if theistic evolution is ID ? Shouldn't Dembski of all people know what is and is not ID ?

How does your classification deal with a theistic evolutionist who is a noted opponent of ID ?

It's really not clear how you can maintain that theistic evolution is aligned with ID in the face of clear disagreement between the two camps.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 2:35 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 2:54 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 21 by Iblis, posted 05-29-2008 3:09 AM PaulK has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2978 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 20 of 91 (468349)
05-29-2008 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
05-29-2008 2:43 AM


Re: back to the thread topic
It seems to me you are simply evading the thread topic issues raised in the OP. Some YECers say Old Earth Creationists are no friends to creationism. So what?

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2008 2:43 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2008 7:41 AM randman has responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 1975 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 21 of 91 (468352)
05-29-2008 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
05-29-2008 2:43 AM


a house divided against itself
It's really not clear how you can maintain that theistic evolution is aligned with ID in the face of clear disagreement between the two camps.

Maybe it's similar to Catholics and Protestants. The Protestants say they are the same kind of thing as Catholics claim to be, but the Catholics disagree. Next thing you know someone blows up a schoolbus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2008 2:43 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2008 7:49 AM Iblis has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 557 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 22 of 91 (468365)
05-29-2008 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
04-23-2008 5:50 PM


Choose the gaps for your Gods.
It could be argued that it's just a question of which and how many gaps the God is stuck in.

I.D.ers seem to need to point to what they consider to be evidence of their designer, whereas those who stick their Gods in more remote gaps seem to be more in favour of the idea that faith is required in order to believe in their deities, rather than evidence. But there's no clear dividing line.

This is a good topic title, certainly, and you have a strong argument, randman, if you're claiming that "theistic evos" are, in a sense, I.D.ers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 5:50 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 1:40 PM bluegenes has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 23 of 91 (468385)
05-29-2008 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
05-29-2008 2:54 AM


Re: back to the thread topic
No, I am pointing out that the points in the OP do not seem to constitute a good definition of waht it is to be an "IDer".

My grounds are that:

1) It requires labelling a prominent opponent of ID as a supporter of ID.

2) It requires saying that a prominent member of the ID movement didn't even understand what ID was.

To which we could add that the modern ID movement originated as a relabelling of creationism (as revealed in the Dover trial), that a large majority of ID's output is anti-evolution and that ID seems mainly concerned with modifying the teaching of evolution in schools. If theistic evolutionists are opposed to a large majority of the output of ID and a - perhaps the - major objective of ID, why on earth should we consider them to support ID ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 2:54 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 1:29 PM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14753
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 24 of 91 (468388)
05-29-2008 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Iblis
05-29-2008 3:09 AM


Re: a house divided against itself
The problem is that Catholics are accepted as Christian on the whole - even by many Protestants. To the best of my knowledge Catholics accept many Protestants as Christians (even recognising the ordinations of the Anglican church, for instance).

So your point is really restricted to those extremist Protestants who deny that Catholics are Christian at all. But who among them could have the authority to speak for Christianity to the same extent that Dembski - one of the "Founding Fathers" of ID - could speak for the ID movement ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Iblis, posted 05-29-2008 3:09 AM Iblis has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 91 (468430)
05-29-2008 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by randman
05-29-2008 2:25 AM


We could go so far as to say that Theistic Evolutionists are creationists, because they believe that god uses evolution to create lifeforms.
But why cloud the issue?

Why is it clouding the issue to point out the obvious? Theistic evos are in some sense creationists.

I answered that in the next sentance in my post:

quote:
CreationistsTM believe that evolution cannot explain god's creation, so in that sense, TE's are not 'those type' of creationists.

The same goes with being an IDist. IDest believe that evolution is wrong. To say that a Theistic Evolutionist is an IDist would imply that they don't accept the ToE, but that is not the case.

Its just confusing and unnecessary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 2:25 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 1:35 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2978 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 26 of 91 (468437)
05-29-2008 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by PaulK
05-29-2008 7:41 AM


Re: back to the thread topic
Why not address the points in the OP? Theistic evos claim an Intelligent Designer created the universe. Is this a scientific view?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2008 7:41 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 05-29-2008 1:37 PM randman has responded
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2008 1:52 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2978 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 27 of 91 (468439)
05-29-2008 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by New Cat's Eye
05-29-2008 12:00 PM


Is it a scientific view to claim God created the universe or 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? Is it just the faith of theistic evos to insist that God could only be effective in direct intervention at the beginning?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-29-2008 12:00 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-29-2008 2:36 PM randman has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 28 of 91 (468440)
05-29-2008 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by randman
05-29-2008 1:29 PM


Re: back to the thread topic
Theistic evos claim an Intelligent Designer created the universe. Is this a scientific view?

What evidence do they bring? What tests or experiments have they conducted, and what predictions have been made and found to be accurate?

In other words, are they following the scientific method?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 1:29 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 05-29-2008 1:42 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2978 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 29 of 91 (468441)
05-29-2008 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by bluegenes
05-29-2008 4:52 AM


Re: Choose the gaps for your Gods.
It could be argued that it's just a question of which and how many gaps the God is stuck in.

Conversely, one could argue that there are no gaps at all, but that God is involved in every process. I think this is a point many misunderstand about Christian theology. From God's perspective, natural and spiritual mechanisms are all subordinate to Him from the Christian perspective. The idea is God upholds all mechanisms. It's not the God of gaps thinking many believe it is.

But I hear ya.......IDers point to weaknesses as they seem them in evo theory aka gaps and use that as evidence for God filling that whereas theistic evos just have one big gap at the beginning. But a more complete look from a theological perspective is that God is in control of it all.

This is a good topic title, certainly, and you have a strong argument, randman, if you're claiming that "theistic evos" are, in a sense, I.D.ers.

That is what I am claiming. It would be interesting to see if theistic evos view their belief as science or a faith perspective.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by bluegenes, posted 05-29-2008 4:52 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by bluegenes, posted 05-29-2008 2:23 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2978 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 30 of 91 (468443)
05-29-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Coyote
05-29-2008 1:37 PM


Re: back to the thread topic
You'd have to ask them.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 05-29-2008 1:37 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019