Is the Theory of Evolution Harmless to Religion?

[Nick Soapdish]

which is why the "design" is so pervasively unintelligent.

I might suggest that both yourself and the ID advocate might be unqualified to discern what is intelligent for an infinite being to do or not do.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I might suggest that both yourself and the ID advocate might be unqualified to discern what is intelligent for an infinite being to do or not do.

You might but, given the source, that is hardly a matter of particular concern.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Are you familiar with the theory of intelligent design? I'm no proponent of at all, but it is compatibile with the theory evolution (it kind of makes me shudder to both call them a theory -- we really need better terminology). Intelligent design is just the Deist theory of how the universe was created.

How do you work out the compatibility? Evolution is based on random mutation, ID assumed there's someone out there with modeling clay making eyeballs, cos they couldn't happen on their own. The difference between ID and Creation rests solely in the fact that I don't believe anyone pushing ID has suggested God only spent 6 days busy with the plasticine.

 

[Cynic]

How do you work out the compatibility? Evolution is based on random mutation, ID assumed there's someone out there with modeling clay making eyeballs, cos they couldn't happen on their own. The difference between ID and Creation rests solely in the fact that I don't believe anyone pushing ID has suggested God only spent 6 days busy with the plasticine.

Yes, they are in fact compatible, see. God made thingies so men could pee standing up, and say through evolution, it just happened to... no wait... errr...

 

[Scuba Pete]

And where have I ever contended such a thing?

Right here (in the same post, go figure):

If, however, one insists on a literal interpretation of Genesis, one must reject, at least in part, the findings of evolutionary theory.

But for now, I am setting you back to "ignore". Your constant twisting of what I (and others) say and your bombastic demeanor vexes my soul. I'll try to "ignore" your anti-Christian trolls even when others quote you! Have a great life!

 

[Scuba Pete]

I might suggest that both yourself and the ID advocate might be unqualified to discern what is intelligent for an infinite being to do or not do.

BRAVO!!! This was possibly the most intellegently designed post in this thread!

 

[mr.guy]

I might suggest that both yourself and the ID advocate might be unqualified to discern what is intelligent for an infinite being to do or not do.

Furthermore, we might all be unqualified to definitively assign intelligence to this infinite being.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Deut has long contended that evolution disproves Christianity

And where have I ever contended such a thing?

Right here (in the same post, go figure):

If, however, one insists on a literal interpretation of Genesis, one must reject, at least in part, the findings of evolutionary theory.

What a sad example of perception addled by petty bitterness.

Anyone less dogmatically committed to their own confusion would clearly recognize the fact that

If, however, one insists on a literal interpretation of Genesis, one must reject, at least in part, the findings of evolutionary theory.​

in no way equates to the assertion that

evolution disproves Christianity​

As for the validity of this assertion, it is enough to to note that Genesis 1:21 asserts the creation of

the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind​

on day 5, and then reports in 1:24-25 that, on the following day,

God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” It was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.​

The findings of evolutionary theory makes clear that birds arose much later than Genesis allows.

But for now, I am setting you back to "ignore".

That would be good. You do little for your own credibility when you you make such obvious errors.

Your constant twisting of what I (and others) say and your bombastic demeanor vexes my soul.

Sadly, the only twisting I see here is from you.

I'll try to "ignore" your anti-Christian trolls even when others quote you!

Ignore them as you wish. Characterize them as you wish. Just please don't distort them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

BRAVO!!! This was possibly the most intellegently designed post in this thread!

Ya gotta love it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Furthermore, we might all be unqualified to definitively assign intelligence to this infinite being.

Precisely. If one wishes to argue that no mere human is capable of determining what does, and what does not, constitute intelligence on the part of God (a position with which I fully agree, by the way), then no mere human has the right to claim Intelligent Design.

 

[jeffrey]

Right here (in the same post, go figure):
But for now, I am setting you back to "ignore". Your constant twisting of what I (and others) say and your bombastic demeanor vexes my soul. I'll try to "ignore" your anti-Christian trolls even when others quote you! Have a great life!

I love it! Anybody with half a brian knows where your coming from! :clap:

 

[michel]

Yes, they are in fact compatible, see. God made thingies so men could pee standing up, and say through evolution, it just happened to... no wait... errr...

Oh, is that what my thingy's for......................and all these years............

 

[mr.guy]

Oh, is that what my thingy's for......................and all these years............

And don't forget puppetry!

 

[michel]

And don't forget puppetry!

puppertry ? that's little wooden men dangling off strings.......isn't it?

 

[ladylazarus]

How do you work out the compatibility? Evolution is based on random mutation, ID assumed there's someone out there with modeling clay making eyeballs, cos they couldn't happen on their own. The difference between ID and Creation rests solely in the fact that I don't believe anyone pushing ID has suggested God only spent 6 days busy with the plasticine.

ID simply assumes that there was an intelligent being who set the universe in motion. It's a baseless idea, but still compatible, because evolution could easily exist within that framework.

 

[Sunstone]

ID simply assumes that there was an intelligent being who set the universe in motion. It's a baseless idea, but still compatible, because evolution could easily exist within that framework.

There might be some proponents of ID who are arguing along those lines, but there are also proponents of ID who argue that the Designer intervenes from time to time to create new species. That is, they argue that ID is an ongoing process.

 

[michel]

There might be some proponents of ID who are arguing along those lines, but there are also proponents of ID who argue that the Designer intervenes from time to time to create new species. That is, they argue that ID is an ongoing process.

Ah, well, that, I cannot accept; I agree with the plausibility of the first argument.

 

[Cynic]

Oh, is that what my thingy's for......................and all these years............

:biglaugh:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

ID simply assumes that there was an intelligent being who set the universe in motion. It's a baseless idea, but still compatible, because evolution could easily exist within that framework.

That is inaccurate.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. [Discovery Institute]

Intelligent Design is explicitly teleological and counterposed to natural selection.

 

[Sunstone]

Is the theory of evolution compatible with the notion of original sin? If so, how? If not, how not?