Not only Natural Laws but Rules of Evolution?

[metis]

Yes, I will lack a belief in a god because the evidence for such is lacking. That is not the same as claiming that there is no god. Now I will easily deny and refute certain versions of God but so many of the believers in those gods seem to think that I am trying to refute all versions of god. That simply cannot be done. That is a pitfall of having an absolute belief that one's own God is the only possible version of God.

IMO, it is quite possible that some may have some theistic beliefs even though they cannot prove it per se. Other than that, I do agree with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

IMO, it is quite possible that some may have some theistic beliefs even though they cannot prove it per se. Other than that, I do agree with you.

I agree too. I was not saying that all theists have that belief, but we all know of various fundamentalists that make the error of assuming that the theory of evolution is an attempt to "disprove God".

 

[gnostic]

What some evolution deniers don't understand is that there are a great many theologians who believe in what's sometimes called "theistic evolution", namely that God [or Gods] was/were behind it all.

Yes

Even after Origin of Species was published, there were number of Christian clergymen supporting Evolution, including the 7 Anglican theologians who attended the debate at Oxford in 1860, between Thomas Henry Huxley (biologist) & Samuel Wilberforce (bishop of Oxford).

The theologians were all scientists of some fields, who taught in either in Oxford or Cambridge, except for one being a layman, the other 6 were clergymen, and they were authors of articles to the "Essays and Reviews", that was published in 1860:

• Rowland Williams
• Frederick Temple
• Baden Powell
• Henry Bristow Wilson
• Mark Pattison
• Benjamin Jowett
• Charles Wycliffe Goodwin (layman)

The point is that these 7 Anglican theologians supported Huxley's argument over Wilberforce's in regards to the publication On Origin of Species (1859).

So it wasn't all Christian clergymen against Natural Selection, and these clergymen were just as well-educated as Wilberforce. Plus, Frederick Temple would go on to be the Archbishop of Canterbury.

So the creationists often use tactics of associating Natural Selection or Evolution as atheistic theory, is just plain dishonest stupidity.

Dishonest, because today, there are many Christians and Jews who are qualified biologists or paleontologists who don't reject Evolution as scientific theory.

Plus, one of the supporters was Asa Gray, a well-known botanist, as well as friend of Darwin. He not only accepted Natural Selection, he was actually one who had proposed the "theistic evolution".

 

[exchemist]

Yes

Even after Origin of Species was published, there were number of Christian clergymen supporting Evolution, including the 7 Anglican theologians who attended the debate at Oxford in 1860, between Thomas Henry Huxley (biologist) & Samuel Wilberforce (bishop of Oxford).

The theologians were all scientists of some fields, who taught in either in Oxford or Cambridge, except for one being a layman, the other 6 were clergymen, and they were authors of articles to the "Essays and Reviews", that was published in 1860:

• Rowland Williams
• Frederick Temple
• Baden Powell
• Henry Bristow Wilson
• Mark Pattison
• Benjamin Jowett
• Charles Wycliffe Goodwin (layman)

The point is that these 7 Anglican theologians supported Huxley's argument over Wilberforce's in regards to the publication On Origin of Species (1859).

So it wasn't all Christian clergymen against Natural Selection, and these clergymen were just as well-educated as Wilberforce. Plus, Frederick Temple would go on to be the Archbishop of Canterbury.

So the creationists often use tactics of associating Natural Selection or Evolution as atheistic theory, is just plain dishonest stupidity.

Dishonest, because today, there are many Christians and Jews who are qualified biologists or paleontologists who don't reject Evolution as scientific theory.

Plus, one of the supporters was Asa Gray, a well-known botanist, as well as friend of Darwin. He not only accepted Natural Selection, he was actually one who supported the "theistic evolution".

And those were just the Anglicans.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes

Even after Origin of Species was published, there were number of Christian clergymen supporting Evolution, including the 7 Anglican theologians who attended the debate at Oxford in 1860, between Thomas Henry Huxley (biologist) & Samuel Wilberforce (bishop of Oxford).

The theologians were all scientists of some fields, who taught in either in Oxford or Cambridge, except for one being a layman, the other 6 were clergymen, and they were authors of articles to the "Essays and Reviews", that was published in 1860:

• Rowland Williams
• Frederick Temple
• Baden Powell
• Henry Bristow Wilson
• Mark Pattison
• Benjamin Jowett
• Charles Wycliffe Goodwin (layman)

The point is that these 7 Anglican theologians supported Huxley's argument over Wilberforce's in regards to the publication On Origin of Species (1859).

So it wasn't all Christian clergymen against Natural Selection, and these clergymen were just as well-educated as Wilberforce. Plus, Frederick Temple would go on to be the Archbishop of Canterbury.

So the creationists often use tactics of associating Natural Selection or Evolution as atheistic theory, is just plain dishonest stupidity.

Dishonest, because today, there are many Christians and Jews who are qualified biologists or paleontologists who don't reject Evolution as scientific theory.

Plus, one of the supporters was Asa Gray, a well-known botanist, as well as friend of Darwin. He not only accepted Natural Selection, he was actually one who had proposed the "theistic evolution".

To say evolution as purported by Darwin in the sense of absolute incremental changes as small and permanent as they might be is simply a thought based on fossil remains. I know that seems hard to understand for so many, but as said the thought cannot be verified or proved or shown to be true. Some will object and say it's true. Does that mean that every construct of nature is from God? No. For instance while the mechanics were put in place, it does not mean that the mechanic was personally responsible for every future event. But it is hard for many to understand that and put it in place. So the conjectural element even among very bright individuals goes on as if that is what happened.

 

[shunyadragon]

To say evolution as purported by Darwin in the sense of absolute incremental changes as small and permanent as they might be is simply a thought based on fossil remains. I know that seems hard to understand for so many, but as said the thought cannot be verified or proved or shown to be true. Some will object and say it's true. Does that mean that every construct of nature is from God? No. For instance while the mechanics were put in place, it does not mean that the mechanic was personally responsible for every future event. But it is hard for many to understand that and put it in place. So the conjectural element even among very bright individuals goes on as if that is what happened.

You are emphasizing Darwin and yes he proposed the theory based on his knowledge of the time. You need to address the contemporary knowledge of the sciences of evolution which you reject without any basic knowledge of science.