Theistic Evolution

[DeitySlayer]

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?

If you don't like reality, keep it to yourself. Don't insult others for an intelligence and self-honesty you clearly do not possess.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Could you describe your position more specifically?

Its possible man (homo sapien) may have similarities to the ape.

Genesis 2:7
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

 

[Smoke]

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

I think it depends what you mean by theistic evolution. If you mean accepting the fact of evolution while being a theist and believing that God or the Gods are in some manner behind it all, I think it's acceptable. If you mean believing that God intervened in the process of evolution to achieve his ultimate goal of producing humankind, I really don't think it's acceptable. Or rather, since it's acceptable to me if people believe any damn fool thing they want to believe, I should say I don't think it's rational or respectable.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

I could still explain OEC belief.

 

[Autodidact]

Its possible man (homo sapien) may have similarities to the ape.

Genesis 2:7
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

I meant the whole thing, in more detail. What is it you believe about the relationship between God and evolution, not just human evolution. Thanks.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Its possible man (homo sapien) may have similarities to the ape.

Genesis 2:7
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

But does this not say that man was formed from dust. At no point in evolution was anything 'dust'. Even if it was, this would still be innacurate; analagous to describing the Mona Lisa as formed 'from dust', because the pigments were processed from ochre, etc. which is earth/dust.

Further, if we take this verse in light of theistic evolution, does this mean that chimpanzees and gorillas do not have 'life'?

 

[Anaximander]

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

So, what you are admitting, Man of Faith, is that you reject evolution not because of the physical evidence but because of a particular belief, i.e., your favored interpretation of the Bible. There are over 30 thousand different Christian denominations and each one believes they have been blessed with the Holy Spirit giving them the proper interpretation of the Bible. Can they all be correct if they are all different?

I consider myself a theistic evolutionist in the general sense. I am open to a literal biblical interpretation which agrees with the discoveries of science, yet I am also open to a metaphorical interpretation. Remember, the most metaphorical person in the Bible was Jesus himself. He even told his disciples to "always" speak in metaphors. Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Take the verse literally until you cannot". Sadly, the fundamentalist Christian community took this on a one of their traditions (I wrote about this and soon I will post it). The origins of this particular approach was John Calvin himself (and one other but Calvin was the most influential).

best,

 

[Autodidact]

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

Ooh, nice love for your fellow Christian. I'm sure that's the type of attitude that cemented Christianity's historic reputation for oppression and repression of science. Way to go!

 

[Biblestudent_007]

I meant the whole thing, in more detail. What is it you believe about the relationship between God and evolution, not just human evolution. Thanks.

In a short summary, the Hand of God has always guided the evolution of the human race. (I'm thinking National Geographic) . .

 

[Autodidact]

In a short summary, the Hand of God has always guided the evolution of the human race. (I'm thinking National Geographic) . .

How about not so short a summary? Expound at length; I'm interested.

Also, not so much humans, or are only one out of 12 million species on one planet that is a sub-atomic speck in the universe, but how we come to have so many species of organisms, why they're so well-adapted to their environments, and what role God plays in that.

Thanks.

 

[Atomist]

So, what you are admitting, Man of Faith, is that you reject evolution not because of the physical evidence but because of a particular belief, i.e., your favored interpretation of the Bible. There are over 30 thousand different Christian denominations and each one believes they have been blessed with the Holy Spirit giving them the proper interpretation of the Bible. Can they all be correct if they are all different?

I consider myself a theistic evolutionist in the general sense. I am open to a literal biblical interpretation which agrees with the discoveries of science, yet I am also open to a metaphorical interpretation. Remember, the most metaphorical person in the Bible was Jesus himself. He even told his disciples to "always" speak in metaphors. Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Take the verse literally until you cannot". Sadly, the fundamentalist Christian community took this on a one of their traditions (I wrote about this and soon I will post it). The origins of this particular approach was John Calvin himself (and one other but Calvin was the most influential).

best,

Wait so it he bible doesn't line up with science it's a metaphor but it if lines up with science it's literal? Seems like a good way to make the bible unfalsifiable.

 

[Alceste]

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

Yes, we are physiological similar, depending on what you mean by "similar".

 

[Alceste]

Wait so it he bible doesn't line up with science it's a metaphor but it if lines up with science it's literal? Seems like a good way to make the bible unfalsifiable.

The bible is not required to be falsifiable. It's just a book, after all. Or, more accurately, a collection of books from various authors at various times in human history. Believing in the literal truth of ANY of those writings is not a prerequisite for faith in Christ.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

So, what you are admitting, Man of Faith, is that you reject evolution not because of the physical evidence but because of a particular belief, i.e., your favored interpretation of the Bible. There are over 30 thousand different Christian denominations and each one believes they have been blessed with the Holy Spirit giving them the proper interpretation of the Bible. Can they all be correct if they are all different?

I consider myself a theistic evolutionist in the general sense. I am open to a literal biblical interpretation which agrees with the discoveries of science, yet I am also open to a metaphorical interpretation. Remember, the most metaphorical person in the Bible was Jesus himself. He even told his disciples to "always" speak in metaphors. Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Take the verse literally until you cannot". Sadly, the fundamentalist Christian community took this on a one of their traditions (I wrote about this and soon I will post it). The origins of this particular approach was John Calvin himself (and one other but Calvin was the most influential).

best,

The shame is that a lot of Christians really can't separate the bible from god. They believe that if the bible is wrong on any one point then that automatically means that god cannot exist. Therefore they fervently hold on to the idea of an inerrant scripture despite any and all evidence to the contrary.
In a sense, the book becomes their god.

 

[Smoke]

In a short summary, the Hand of God has always guided the evolution of the human race. (I'm thinking National Geographic) . .

If you haven't read Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God, I recommend that you do so. Miller is a Christian who does an excellent job of explaining evolution and how he reconciles science and faith.

 

[Atomist]

The shame is that a lot of Christians really can't separate the bible from god. They believe that if the bible is wrong on any one point then that automatically means that god cannot exist. Therefore they fervently hold on to the idea of an inerrant scripture despite any and all evidence to the contrary.
In a sense, the book becomes their god.

It kind of follows axiomatically from the bible being the perfect word of god.

Also what is your proof an evidence that anti-magic sandwichism is true and correct? :bounce

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Also what is your proof an evidence that anti-magic sandwichism is true and correct? :bounce

Pinecones. Pinecones are getting smaller due to...um....entropy. Yeah, that's it...

 

[Atomist]

Pinecones. Pinecones are getting smaller due to...um....entropy. Yeah, that's it...

Have you read the bible?
The magic sandwich cookbook?

derailing this thread is fun

 

[Smoke]

derailing this thread is fun

Maybe, but I don't think it's a good idea. When someone is having trouble coming to grips with the facts but is making an honest effort to do so, I think both the person and the effort deserve a modicum of respect.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Maybe, but I don't think it's a good idea. When someone is having trouble coming to grips with the facts but is making an honest effort to do so, I think both the person and the effort deserve a modicum of respect.

Agreed.