quote:Originally posted by minnemooseus: The evolution/creation debate has long been polarized as evolution versus fundimentalist creationist anti-evolutionism.
It is often aserted by the evolution side, that many view evolution and Christian religion (and creationism?) to be something that can co-exist.
This thread attempts to explore such middle ground. Of course, this still runs against the beliefs of the fundimentalists.
I would be interested to hear from the Christian evolutionist side, as to what they find to be a suitable "flavor" of creationism.
I guess my intent really is to address this topic to the people of the evolution side. The fundimentalist creationist side is naturally opposed to theistic evolution as it includes a substantial acceptance of evolution.
So, evolution side, what do you think of theistic evolution?
------------------ BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-22-2002]
"Evolution, and science in general, does not address religion or God or the supernatural at all. If everyone in a science classroom was Hindu or Bhuddist, would it be OK to teach science, but not if everyone is Protestant Fundamentalist Christian?" --I was not addressing science, I was addressing the ToE as it is perpertrated as the FoE (Fact of Evolution) no matter in what scence, they say there are many theories on how it happened, but they say that it Did happen. Science is Great, I love science, otherwize I would be in no place to be in this discussion, and even enjoy it.
"Science is the naturalistic explanations of naturalistic phenomena. That's it." --Exactly
"Should The Atomic Theory of Matter, The Germ Theory of Disease, or Gravitational Theory not be taught in schools, because if some religious sects feel that the teaching of these subjects "discredits God"?" --Again I was not asserting against Science, but against the ToE. These theories you propose discredit God in no way or, known to me, sercumstance, its the way they teach it, as I have first hand experience as I am still inhereting public school education.
"Pure Bull, TC, this is pure sour-grapes bull." --I would suspect a response such as this.
"Creation "science" is religiously-based and it's fundamental tennets are based not upon evidence and observation, but upon faith that a particular interpretation of a particular part of a particular chapter in Genesis is correct, with no evidence ever changing that. --I would advise reading of my posted literature, as you have unsuccessfully proved this wrong, and even in your attempts to make it as you say, I have proved it wrong as one of the few that you can actually 'prove' as I have to the degree of this posted time in our converstion. Are you at all interested in the facts or are you only interested in your own pre-conceived belief on creation science, you would be successful if you accused creationism, but not creation science, as it is purely scientific in natural phenomenal explinations.
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-25-2002]
"I guess my intent really is to address this topic to the people of the evolution side. The fundimentalist creationist side is naturally opposed to theistic evolution as it includes a substantial acceptance of evolution.
So, evolution side, what do you think of theistic evolution?" --I agree, but would this inquire discussion? --If someone is a theistic bible believing evolutionist, then I am glad to hear that, at least they are believers of the biblical fundementals, and don't let me stray you another direction in believing scripture, as long as your on the foundation.
Another critique... That version of theistic evolution is evolution synthesized with Christianity. I know that the largest opponents of evolution are Christian creationists, but that does not mean that such a religion-science synthesis should be restricted to Christianity. It is just one of the major religions. What about others? Judaism? Islam? Could they be included in theistic evolution or should every religion & cult develop their own version of theistic evolution?
Or, should we agree to keep religion outside evolution?
For whatever reason theistic evolutionists rarely reveal their hand. (Please feel free to make a liar of me ).
For many I think they simply have decided the issue is not important.
IMO many theistic evolutionists dislike the topic because they realise the two don't really mix. I suspect many would want to give God a lot more guiding power than they would like talking about in front of an evoltuionist. Does a theistic evoltuionist really get that many browny points if he still believes God prodded things along the way? Man evolved speech not becasue of duplicated genes randomly mutating but becuase God mutated them??
On the other hand other theistic evoltuionists realise that what they're saying makes them so evoltuioinary that they almost start wondering about any of Scripture. Where they draw the line becomes an uncomfortable issue they would rather not think about - creation, flood, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Daniel, Jesus, Paul . . .
quote:Originally posted by Tranquility Base: For whatever reason theistic evolutionists rarely reveal their hand. (Please feel free to make a liar of me ).
For many I think they simply have decided the issue is not important.
IMO many theistic evolutionists dislike the topic because they realise the two don't really mix. I suspect many would want to give God a lot more guiding power than they would like talking about in front of an evoltuionist. ...
On the other hand, they might recognize the rain of criticism they they can expect from some hard-core YECs. It seems there is a special place in hell for theistic evolutionists, somewhere well below your run-of-the-mill evolutionists.
There are two reasons not many of us "show our hand".
One is the response we get from some YECS. Many of them seem to think it's impossible for us to exist. It upsets their simplistic "Evolution=Atheism=Bad" vs "Creationism=Christianity=Good" worldview, and this manifests in hostility. There are some exceptions - some folks here, Optional from OCR (RIP), and the more the merrier.
This simplistic worldview manifests itself in the interchangability of "evolutionist" and "atheist" in many YEC posters' contributions; in the assumption that evolutionists do not believe in God (some do, some don't), and the strong belief that if they convert one to Christianity, that person would also reject evolution. What they blatantly fail to see is that it is this perceived requirement to reject good science that makes a barrier - not the barrier, but a barrier - between the scientist and faith. No rational person is going to adopt a model of faith that is "believing what you know isn't true".
The second reason is that it's the YECs who really care about it. Because of the forementioned simplistic worldview, defending YEC is defending the gospel. But for those of us not tied to literalism, it's a complete non-issue. One can be a Christian regardless of one's position on evolution. The interest in evolution amongst non creationist Christians is about the same as the interest in it in the public at large - passing. Science may be a big thing to me, but it's not to most people.
I was interested to read back (aware that this thread started over a year ago) the following:
quote:He's full in for evolution, just with God to fill in all the gaps of origins and the problems with evolution by saying 'goddidit' and that it was all 'miracles' which is what creation science (because it is science) avoids.
Wrong. Theistic evolutionists as a rule are firmly opposed to 'God of the Gaps' fallacies. There is no part of my understanding of the origin of life or biodiversity that I relegate to "Goddidit", except in the general sense that I believe that all of it is "Goddidit". Science's role is telling me how He did. I do, with all scientists, relegate some questions to "I don't know."
[This message has been edited by Karl, 06-03-2003]
I'm a Deist. I adhere to theistic evolution: the parameters for evolution were set at Creation 15 billion years ago, and since then evolution has been running freely.
I see no contradiction between evolution and a Deistic concept of God. I, do, however, see a contradiction between evolution and classical theism, and foremostly between evolution and Christianity.
Classical theism holds that God is sovereign over His creation, intervenes in the history of His creation. Evolution, which means a blind, ruthless operation of natural law, puts such a god out of the picture. The God of evolution is the God of Natural Law - the God of Deism, not of theism.
As for Christianity, it relies on the literal truth of Genesis in order to function. There must be a literal Adam and Eve who ate a literal fruit from the literal Garden of Eden so that a literally resurrected Jesus should save from a literal hell.
The main theme of Christianity is that death is an enemy ("The Last Enemy"), an intruder into a previously perfect world. Evolution refutes this: death is the natural order of things. The theme of Christianity is Christ's triumph over this enemy called death. If death is the natural order of things - and that is what evolution means - then there was nothing for Christ to triumph over, and Christianity is reduced to a meaningless mythology.
I hope this has provided some food for thought about faith and evolution.
[This message has been edited by emotional, 07-19-2003]
Perhaps because I am atheist, I'm a bit confused by your statement.
quote:I'm a Deist. I adhere to theistic evolution:
Why not call it Deistic Evolution?
quote:the parameters for evolution were set at Creation 15 billion years ago, and since then evolution has been running freely.
You mean, without the Deity?
quote:Evolution, which means a blind, ruthless operation of natural law, puts such a god [theistic] out of the picture. The God of evolution is the God of Natural Law - the God of Deism, not of theism.
Does this mean that Deists view God as blind and ruthless?
And, just out of curiosity: Of what value is a god which is not sovereign and doesn't intervene?
------------------ "If God created Nature, then the Law of Nature is the Law of God."
quote:How can one be certain that the Bible "cannot be wrong", when "fallible humans" have been involved in it's production?
One can't, of course. The old King James Version of the Bible, for example, is considered by many to be the only true translaton (even though its inadequacies are easy to demonstrate). It has, in fact, been radically altered for English readers in many ways. One of the changes removed the name Jesus from at least two places and substituted the name Joshua. Not a serious problem for Bible scholars, but potentially devastating for a true believer with no charlatan ... errr ... pastor, to hold his hand and talk him through a crisis of faith. Faith in translators actually. A faith which may be limited to one particular scholar, or scholars on the payroll of a particular religious denomination.
The next step then, for proponents of inerrancy, is to claim that the "original documents" contain no mistakes. This is a convenient dodge, since there are NO ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. And, there are literally thousands of manuscripts from antiquity; but they are all different; not one completely agrees with the others.
And, there are literally thousands of manuscripts from antiquity; but they are all different; not one completely agrees with the others.
You don't know how many conflicting reports I've heard about the consistency of old manuscripts. Where did you get your information? Seems like everyone and their dog has a different story. I'd like to see these manuscripts. Then again most scholars who open their traps about this haven't seen them either.
From a website posted by a man who is translating parts of the New Testament.
Here's what he says:
"... the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the four gospels which we do have available to us today all differ from one another. Consequently there is need not only for translation, but also need to decide from which of the thousands of Greek text variants to translate. " ... "I also believe in the inspiration of scripture by God. The problem is, if God preserved his word perfectly to the letter, in which of the 5,000+ manuscripts is it preserved, since not one is identical to the other?"