Theistic Evolution

[Biblestudent_007]

On the premise that I believe science is a tool for study and exploration, I've come to believe that Theistic Evolution is acceptable.

 

[tumbleweed41]

On the premise that I believe science is a tool for study and exploration, I've come to believe that Theistic Evolution is acceptable.

It is not an actual scientific theory, however it is a rational belief for a theist to take in light of scientific evidence.

 

[Atomist]

I don't know how rational it is to believe since this God character being involved in evolution is not necessary to explain the origins of life. It's kind of a god of the gaps argument.

 

[evolved yet?]

Your belief is completely possible and I respect your belief.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't know how rational it is to believe since this God character being involved in evolution is not necessary to explain the origins of life. It's kind of a god of the gaps argument.

I don’t think you understand the concept of theistic evolution; it is not “god of the gaps” at all. Evolution is a scientific theory, which like all other scientific theories says nothing at all about the existence of “God” one way or the other. So from a scientific perspective is equally rational to be a theistic evolutionist or an atheistic evolutionist. Neither theistic nor atheistic evolution are strictly speaking scientific, but they are valid metaphysical extrapolations of a scientific theory.

We have to stop trying to exclude theists from science.

I am not a theist, but I consider theistic evolution to be a rational position.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

I don't know how rational it is to believe since this God character being involved in evolution is not necessary to explain the origins of life. It's kind of a god of the gaps argument.

The premise is that God is the Creator of all things that exist.

Whether man (homo sapien) is somehow related to the ape (chimpanzee,gorilla,bonobo etc) is a matter of scientific debate.

 

[Atomist]

I don’t think you understand the concept of theistic evolution; it is not “god of the gaps” at all. Evolution is a scientific theory, which like all other scientific theories says nothing at all about the existence of “God” one way or the other. So from a scientific perspective is equally rational to be a theistic evolutionist or an atheistic evolutionist. Neither theistic nor atheistic evolution are strictly speaking scientific, but they are valid metaphysical extrapolations of a scientific theory.

We have to stop trying to exclude theists from science.

I am not a theist, but I consider theistic evolution to be a rational position.

I agree with you for the most part that it is a rational position, but my contention is that saying that god is not necessary to explain life and you do lose chunks of genesis. I'm probably wrong in calling it god of the gaps, but it's more of a superfluous step to assert god in there. I still do respect the position because it's the most reasonable stance someone who believes in god can take.

The premise is that God is the Creator of all things that exist.

Whether man (homo sapien) is somehow related to the ape (chimpanzee,gorilla,bonobo etc) is a matter of scientific debate.

And that premise is kind of... not supported? I'm just saying.

I didn't mean to come off as saying that position is not reasonable, because I think it is the most reasonable position that you can take once you accept the premise that God is the creator of all things that exists. The premise is poorly worded though, since if you except god exists and created all things that exists that logically follows he created himself but I do understand what you mean.

 

[Wotan]

The premise is that God is the Creator of all things that exist.

Whether man (homo sapien) is somehow related to the ape (chimpanzee,gorilla,bonobo etc) is a matter of scientific debate.

Not any more it isn't. As long you define "related" as sharing very much the same DNA - we jus brothers under da skin.

 

[Skwim]

Evolution is a scientific theory, which like all other scientific theories says nothing at all about the existence of “God” one way or the other.

In the beginning evolution was a theory proposed to explain the diversity of species, but in time it lost its standing as a theory and gained status as fact. So it's no longer a theory, although some of the mechanisms underlying its operation remain theoretical.
Theistic evolution, as nicely explained by Wikipedia, says

1. there is a God, and..
2. God is (either):

a. the creator of the material universe, who employed evolution to develop life within† or..
b. the creator of human life (via the gift of the soul), based on a physical body, which was..

1. formed through evolution.
2. formed through evolution with divine guidance.
​

I believe a. is the more prevalent of the two, which is nice for those who need god in the mix, but wholly unnecessary as far as the operation of evolution itself goes.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

I wonder if [human physiology] is similar to the ape,chimpanzee,gorilla.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I didn't mean to come off as saying that position is not reasonable, because I think it is the most reasonable position that you can take once you accept the premise that God is the creator of all things that exists. The premise is poorly worded though, since if you except god exists and created all things that exists that logically follows he created himself but I do understand what you mean.

Not necessarily. If one understands that the laws of cause and effect apply only within our Universe, and apparently not always at the quantum level, then the need for a beginning of a 'God' is not foundational to a belief in a'God'.

 

[DeitySlayer]

A more logical position than Creationism certainly. However, I would be interested to hear you explanation for how you 'square' the existence of a benevolent God with the existence of diseases, etc. Creationists can fall back on 'sin entered the world after the Fall' etc, but just wondering how you would explain it?

 

[Biblestudent_007]

the book of Genesis.

 

[Man of Faith]

Enjoy aligning yourself with God haters. I'll stick with the Bible.

 

[Skwim]

Enjoy aligning yourself with God haters. I'll stick with the Bible.

Errrr. . . . . . . just who are these god haters you speak of?

 

[Man of Faith]

Wait a Bible student that accepts evolution? When creation is described all through the whole Bible? Which Bible are you a student of, The Origin of the Species version?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Errrr. . . . . . . just who are these god haters you speak of?

I'd like to know the answer to that as well.

 

[Autodidact]

On the premise that I believe science is a tool for study and exploration, I've come to believe that Theistic Evolution is acceptable.

Could you describe your position more specifically?

 

[Reptillian]

A more logical position than Creationism certainly. However, I would be interested to hear you explanation for how you 'square' the existence of a benevolent God with the existence of diseases, etc. Creationists can fall back on 'sin entered the world after the Fall' etc, but just wondering how you would explain it?

I agree, if God is benevolent, then evolution doesn't seem like a good method of creation. I mean, whats the lesson there? Might makes right? The ends justify the means? Evolution is great for the population and species as a whole, but doesn't care about the individual. Evolution doesn't worry about whether a form is the best or most efficient...as long as it works. Seems like a pretty crappy way for a loving God to create life. Seems to me that if there is a God, its indifferent to life at best. No, theistic evolution will lead you toward agnosticism or pantheism at best. Trust me, I know.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Wait a Bible student that accepts evolution? When creation is described all through the whole Bible? Which Bible are you a student of, The Origin of the Species version?

My particular view is based on the book of Genesis.

I believe God gave us science to study and explore everything.

. .