Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
35 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones* (2 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,138 Year: 22,174/19,786 Month: 737/1,834 Week: 237/500 Day: 65/69 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are theistic evolutionists really IDers?
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1579 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 46 of 91 (468618)
05-30-2008 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by randman
05-30-2008 6:36 PM


Re: Where I stand
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 6:36 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 8:20 PM Perdition has not yet responded
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 05-30-2008 8:21 PM Perdition has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 91 (468624)
05-30-2008 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
04-23-2008 5:50 PM


If So, ID Not Jehovah Of Bible
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.

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 50 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 8:19 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20329
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 48 of 91 (468627)
05-30-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by randman
05-30-2008 2:43 PM


Re: Where I stand
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.


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 2:43 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 8:16 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3240 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 49 of 91 (468628)
05-30-2008 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
05-30-2008 8:12 PM


Re: Where I stand
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 05-30-2008 8:12 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-04-2008 4:37 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-04-2008 4:38 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3240 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 50 of 91 (468629)
05-30-2008 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Buzsaw
05-30-2008 7:49 PM


Re: If So, ID Not Jehovah Of Bible
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 05-30-2008 7:49 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 05-30-2008 9:47 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3240 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 51 of 91 (468630)
05-30-2008 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Perdition
05-30-2008 7:04 PM


Re: Where I stand
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Perdition, posted 05-30-2008 7:04 PM Perdition has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 05-31-2008 3:34 AM randman has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20329
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 52 of 91 (468631)
05-30-2008 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Perdition
05-30-2008 7:04 PM


Re: Where I stand
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.


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Perdition, posted 05-30-2008 7:04 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Perdition, posted 05-30-2008 8:37 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1579 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 53 of 91 (468636)
05-30-2008 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by RAZD
05-30-2008 8:21 PM


Re: Where I stand
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 05-30-2008 8:21 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 8:44 PM Perdition has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3240 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 54 of 91 (468638)
05-30-2008 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Perdition
05-30-2008 8:37 PM


Re: Where I stand
Id is the belief that the universe can best be understood as the result of an Intelligent Cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Perdition, posted 05-30-2008 8:37 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Coyote, posted 05-30-2008 9:03 PM randman has responded
 Message 56 by Perdition, posted 05-30-2008 9:13 PM randman has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 447 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 55 of 91 (468643)
05-30-2008 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by randman
05-30-2008 8:44 PM


ID is a belief?
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 8:44 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 9:36 PM Coyote has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1579 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 56 of 91 (468645)
05-30-2008 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by randman
05-30-2008 8:44 PM


Re: Where I stand
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 8:44 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 9:35 PM Perdition has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3240 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 57 of 91 (468651)
05-30-2008 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Perdition
05-30-2008 9:13 PM


Re: Where I stand
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Perdition, posted 05-30-2008 9:13 PM Perdition has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3240 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 58 of 91 (468652)
05-30-2008 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Coyote
05-30-2008 9:03 PM


Re: ID is a belief?
I forget I am dealing with quibblers. Substitute "hypothesis" for "belief" to get the picture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Coyote, posted 05-30-2008 9:03 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Coyote, posted 05-30-2008 10:17 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 91 (468655)
05-30-2008 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
05-30-2008 8:19 PM


Re: If So, ID Not Jehovah Of Bible
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 8:19 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 9:52 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3240 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 60 of 91 (468656)
05-30-2008 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Buzsaw
05-30-2008 9:47 PM


Re: If So, ID Not Jehovah Of Bible
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 05-30-2008 9:47 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 05-30-2008 10:06 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019