Theistic Evolution?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The ghost in the machine presses the buttons and the brain responds.

... you assume.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory, which has been repeatedly confirmed by the evidence through experimentation, observations, and the ability to make predictions about evidence that will be found in the future. Pointing to something like the cambrian explosion (which actually lasted roughly 25 million years ... so not really a good name for it) does not contradict evolution. It merely points to something that scientists have yet to fully grasp and understand.

Classical physics was an immutable Scientific Theory, which was repeatedly confirmed (far more directly so) by the evidence through experimentation, observations, and the ability to make predictions about evidence that will be found in the future. Pointing to something like blackbody radiation merely pointed to something that scientists had yet to fully grasp and understand.

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution

it's not a blanket dismissal of evolution, it's a blanket dismissal of the claim that it is directly measurable, observable, repeatable, ie. conclusive, undeniable.

ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

creation science repeatedly underlined this distinction, and is largely responsible for it's adoption in classical evolution, the observation of superficial mechanisms on one scale (apples falling from trees or moths changing color) cannot be automatically extrapolated into a sufficient explanation for all observed reality- as was once assumed in both cases.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

like piltdown man, lucy? something else?

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

And classical physics could have been falsified if a single apple could have been observed falling upwards.

Again we are not debating superficial observations, we are debating their cause are we not?

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

I agree nothing is as black and white as a word usually implies, and science, especially regarding the biggest, deepest questions, has been consistent in humbling out attempts to make it so. Would you agree that at the very least, 'falsifiable' should be a state of mind, a willingness to change ones mind based on evidence.

as opposed to states of mind that build walls around our beliefs:

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact... "

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked"

Dawkins

 

[leibowde84]

Classical physics was an immutable Scientific Theory, which was repeatedly confirmed (far more directly so) by the evidence through experimentation, observations, and the ability to make predictions about evidence that will be found in the future. Pointing to something like blackbody radiation merely pointed to something that scientists had yet to fully grasp and understand.



it's not a blanket dismissal of evolution, it's a blanket dismissal of the claim that it is directly measurable, observable, repeatable, ie. conclusive, undeniable.


creation science repeatedly underlined this distinction, and is largely responsible for it's adoption in classical evolution, the observation of superficial mechanisms on one scale (apples falling from trees or moths changing color) cannot be automatically extrapolated into a sufficient explanation for all observed reality- as was once assumed in both cases.





like piltdown man, lucy? something else?



And classical physics could have been falsified if a single apple could have been observed falling upwards.

Again we are not debating superficial observations, we are debating their cause are we not?




I agree nothing is as black and white as a word usually implies, and science, especially regarding the biggest, deepest questions, has been consistent in humbling out attempts to make it so. Would you agree that at the very least, 'falsifiable' should be a state of mind, a willingness to change ones mind based on evidence.

as opposed to states of mind that build walls around our beliefs:

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact... "

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked"

Dawkins

A claim being 'falsifiable' has nothing to do with a state of mind. It means that it can, potentially, be proven false because the claim is properly defined.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Classical physics was an immutable Scientific Theory, which was repeatedly confirmed (far more directly so) by the evidence through experimentation, observations, and the ability to make predictions about evidence that will be found in the future. Pointing to something like blackbody radiation merely pointed to something that scientists had yet to fully grasp and understand.



it's not a blanket dismissal of evolution, it's a blanket dismissal of the claim that it is directly measurable, observable, repeatable, ie. conclusive, undeniable.


creation science repeatedly underlined this distinction, and is largely responsible for it's adoption in classical evolution, the observation of superficial mechanisms on one scale (apples falling from trees or moths changing color) cannot be automatically extrapolated into a sufficient explanation for all observed reality- as was once assumed in both cases.





like piltdown man, lucy? something else?



And classical physics could have been falsified if a single apple could have been observed falling upwards.

Again we are not debating superficial observations, we are debating their cause are we not?




I agree nothing is as black and white as a word usually implies, and science, especially regarding the biggest, deepest questions, has been consistent in humbling out attempts to make it so. Would you agree that at the very least, 'falsifiable' should be a state of mind, a willingness to change ones mind based on evidence.

as opposed to states of mind that build walls around our beliefs:

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact... "

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked"

Dawkins

"So to the book's provocation, the statement that nearly half the people in the United States don't believe in evolution. Not just any people but powerful people, people who should know better, people with too much influence over educational policy. We are not talking about Darwin's particular theory of natural selection. It is still (just) possible for a biologist to doubt its importance, and a few claim to. No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

If that gives you offence, I'm sorry. You are probably not stupid, insane or wicked; and ignorance is no crime in a country with strong local traditions of interference in the freedom of biology educators to teach the central theorem of their subject."
-Richard Dawkins, The New York Times

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Just curious as to your thoughts on this. Often, people believe in either/or. Either one believes in the theory of evolution or believes in creationism. But, is it acceptable for lack of a better word, for a Christian to believe that God is the impetus behind Darwin's theory of evolution? Or, is this why ''theistic evolution'' came about? (in order for there to be a bridge (of sorts) between both schools of thought)

Looking forward to your thoughts on the topic.

Actually almost all the Theists i have spoken to agree that the processes of evolution are in keeping with their beliefs.
Although it is a typical habit of atheists to completely ignore this, and then project this notion of 'six literal days of creation'
onto anyone who accepts the morals and ethics of the bible.

Its quite a perplexing situation to observe.
Typically the atheist is trying to hide from their sins, by pointing out the incomplete ontology of Genesis.

The atheist was content with a black & white understanding of the creation / evolution debate.
So when the Christian points out that he or she accepts that the physical bodies of those not fit for survival die off,
and better equipped physical bodies survive, then the atheist just pretends not to notice the argument.

The atheist decides for the Theist, that they believe in six literal days of creation because they accept religious morality,
and the transcendence of the soul; and in the imagination of the atheist, the black & white arguments are preserved,
they do not have to feel the guilt of their sins, and the status quo is blissfully preserved.

When the theist states that they do not take Genesis entirely literally, the atheist is confused,
its seems, the very concept of metaphor, and the trouble it takes to decide which is which
is too much thinking, and after all it is much easier to just get angry.

 

[Ouroboros]

Actually almost all the Theists i have spoken to agree that the processes of evolution are in keeping with their beliefs.

That's true, in most countries, except America.

Although it is a typical habit of atheists to completely ignore this, and then project this notion of 'six literal days of creation'
onto anyone who accepts the morals and ethics of the bible.

I think it's because that many (of not most) Christians in America do believe in six day creation, Noah's ark, and 6,000 y.o. Earth. The conflict right now is powered from the American culture and sentiments. Where you live (Africa if I remember right?), you might not have the issue of these literalists. It's so common in America that some Christian groups have been pushing for banning the teaching of evolution for years. That's the fight many atheists feel they're up against. To keep the scientific truths of biology alive in a country that just keep on falling behind in education.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

That's true, in most countries, except America.


I think it's because that many (of not most) Christians in America do believe in six day creation, Noah's ark, and 6,000 y.o. Earth. The conflict right now is powered from the American culture and sentiments. Where you live (Africa if I remember right?), you might not have the issue of these literalists. It's so common in America that some Christian groups have been pushing for banning the teaching of evolution for years. That's the fight many atheists feel they're up against. To keep the scientific truths of biology alive in a country that just keep on falling behind in education.

Hmm.
I have been online since the 90's.
I cannot recall a single instance of anyone who is creationist and who accepts a 6 literal days of creation.
(online that is)
Now of course there may be some rural American folk (as opposed to us civilized africans)
who may go for the 6 literal days of creation.
Never seen a person capable of using a computer who believes this.

Perhaps they are being subtly contrary?

Like:

If you refuse to believe in God, then we won't believe in your fossils
so neener-neener

You see I find ethics to be far more important to appreciate than biology.
And even though I am more than very happy with a 13+billion year old universe,
I would still rather send my kids to a school that taught a 6 literal days of creation
together with God and Biblical ethics, than send my kids to a school of
biologists who had feckless morals.

Ethics>Biology

in purely metaphysical logical terms.

 

[viole]

Hmm.
I have been online since the 90's.
I cannot recall a single instance of anyone who is creationist and who accepts a 6 literal days of creation.
(online that is)
Now of course there may be some rural American folk (as opposed to us civilized africans)
who may go for the 6 literal days of creation.
Never seen a person capable of using a computer who believes this.

Perhaps they are being subtly contrary?

Like:


You see I find ethics to be far more important to appreciate than biology.
And even though I am more than very happy with a 13+billion year old universe,
I would still rather send my kids to a school that taught a 6 literal days of creation
together with God and Biblical ethics, than send my kids to a school of
biologists who had feckless morals.

Ethics>Biology

in purely metaphysical logical terms.

Do you think that teaching a lie, or sending ones kids to teachers of lies, is not an instance of feckless morality, as you called it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Do you think that teaching a lie, or sending ones kids to teachers of lies, is not an instance of feckless morality, as you called it?

Ciao

- viole

What i said was that lack of biblical ethics was a greater lie than the age of the universe,

because the age of the universe has no real bearing on one's life, and one can get by without it.

Whereas lack of biblical ethics will leave one in any number of horrific social settings,
like in prison for murder or theft, or perhaps worse like trafficked to some horror-show.

Even ignoring the lowly 10th commandment can get one on the receiving end of violence.
Especially observing those who do not observe it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What i said was that lack of biblical ethics was a greater lie than the age of the universe,

because the age of the universe has no real bearing on one's life, and one can get by without it.

Whereas lack of biblical ethics will leave one in any number of horrific social settings,
like in prison for murder or theft, or perhaps worse like trafficked to some horror-show.

Even ignoring the lowly 10th commandment can get one on the receiving end of violence.
Especially observing those who do not observe it.

Lots of people don't follow "bliblical ethics" and don't end up in prison for theft or murder or "trafficked to some horror-show." In fact, American prisons seem to be full of Christians.

I routinely ignore most of the 10 commandments, (a lot of them don't even deal in ethics anyway), and I get by just fine without falling into criminal activity and/or moral depravity. So do many other people.

Maybe you could explain what you mean by "biblical ethics" apart from the 10 commandments?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Lots of people don't follow "bliblical ethics" and don't end up in prison for theft or murder or "trafficked to some horror-show." In fact, American prisons seem to be full of Christians.

I routinely ignore most of the 10 commandments, (a lot of them don't even deal in ethics anyway), and I get by just fine without falling into criminal activity and/or moral depravity. So do many other people.

Maybe you could explain what you mean by "biblical ethics" apart from the 10 commandments?

So what you are saying is that in America
those who do not follow the 10 commandments
and who murder and steal, etc, all walk around freely,
whilst those who do none of these things are all sitting in prison?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So what you are saying is that in America
those who do not follow the 10 commandments
and who murder and steal, etc, all walk around freely,
whilst those who do none of these things are all sitting in prison?

No. I'm saying that a person does not have to follow "biblical ethics" to be a moral person.. So I find your assertion to be an erroneous one.

 

[leibowde84]

So what you are saying is that in America
those who do not follow the 10 commandments
and who murder and steal, etc, all walk around freely,
whilst those who do none of these things are all sitting in prison?

Where did you get that from?! The 10 Commandments didn't enlighten the world that murder, theft, Adultry, etc. was wrong. It merely put it in writing for a specific population of people. It also gave religious leaders authority to punish for criminal activities. But, that is beyond the point of this thread.

Many people can live moral lives without adhering specifically to the 10 Commandments, but, instead, just using common sense arrived at by societal evolution. Being religious or Christian for that matter doesn't make one more or less moral ... Or at least that is what the evidence seems to show. Thus, Biblical Ethics aren't necessary. Just ethics in general are. And Ethics didn't come from the Bible. Biblical ethics came from societal ethics with some stuff about God thrown in there too.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hmm.
I have been online since the 90's.
I cannot recall a single instance of anyone who is creationist and who accepts a 6 literal days of creation.
(online that is)

And I started in the 80's. Dialup on splits peed modems to BBSes. And I was a young earth creationist back then, so I guess you never met me or any of my friends from my congregation. My church even published books about it. Over the years, since I turned atheist in the early 2000's, I've met many young earth creationists online. It's a miracle that you haven't. They do exist, and I've met some in real life as well, even neighbors and friends. But I got even more, my sister and the oldest of my brothers are young earth creationists. My dad was one too. And so on... I know they exist, and you just have had the luck of never encounter them.

Now of course there may be some rural American folk (as opposed to us civilized africans)
who may go for the 6 literal days of creation.
Never seen a person capable of using a computer who believes this.

Here's one: http://creationtoday.org/evidence-for-a-young-earth/
Here's a whole website arguing it: http://nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html (apparently someone capable enough to use HTML, which leads me to tell you that I learned to program computers and even assembly as a young earth creationists, it's not that hard)
This website, famous Creationist website, kind'a argue in favor of young earth: https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/

When we start our thinking with God’s Word, we see that the world is about 6,000 years old. When we rely on man’s fallible (and often demonstrably false) dating methods, we can get a confusing range of ages from a few thousand to billions of years, though the vast majority of methods do not give dates even close to billions.

Cultures around the world give an age of the earth that confirms what the Bible teaches. Radiometric dates, on the other hand, have been shown to be wildly in error.

Also, ask around what Ken Hovind, Ken Ham, and all the other YEC spokespeople did the past 10-15 years. They were on podcasts, wrote books, on radio, even online.

Perhaps they are being subtly contrary?

Like:


You see I find ethics to be far more important to appreciate than biology.
And even though I am more than very happy with a 13+billion year old universe,
I would still rather send my kids to a school that taught a 6 literal days of creation
together with God and Biblical ethics, than send my kids to a school of
biologists who had feckless morals.

Ethics>Biology

in purely metaphysical logical terms.

Here's a list of YEC books: http://www.icr.org/article/young-earth-creationist-bibliography/
Compiled by a YEC scientist who refuses to accept science (strange, isn't it?) Henry M. Morris.

Henry Madison Morris (October 6, 1918 – February 25, 2006) was an American young Earth creationist, Christian apologist, and engineer. He was one of the founders of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research. He is considered by many to be "the father of modern creation science."[1] He wrote numerous creationist and devotional books, and made regular television and radio appearances.[not verified in body]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris

Strange you haven't heard about these people or even encountered them... You just been lucky.

Here's some statistics:
http://www.livescience.com/46123-many-americans-creationists.html
So 40% YEC in US.

Also, another statistics show about 70% of American have Internet.

That makes, at minimum, 10% YEC have Internet, that's some 30 million people.

---edit

I forgot. In the 80's, I was teaching computer science in a christian school at the cultish church I belonged to. Every student there believed God created Earth 6,000 years ago, and had an arsenal of arguments and "evidence" for this to be the real truth.

 

[Milton Platt]

Just curious as to your thoughts on this. Often, people believe in either/or. Either one believes in the theory of evolution or believes in creationism. But, is it acceptable for lack of a better word, for a Christian to believe that God is the impetus behind Darwin's theory of evolution? Or, is this why ''theistic evolution'' came about? (in order for there to be a bridge (of sorts) between both schools of thought)

Looking forward to your thoughts on the topic.

Evolution did not happen either in 6 days or 6,000 years, so no. "theistic evolution" happened because creationists are trying to make their story fit the facts.

 

[Deidre]

Evolution did not happen either in 6 days or 6,000 years, so no. "theistic evolution" happened because creationists are trying to make their story fit the facts.

Not all theists are creationists though, always remember that. lol

 

[viole]

What i said was that lack of biblical ethics was a greater lie than the age of the universe,

With biblical ethics, do you include the commandements that ripping pregnant women apart can be a good thing?

because the age of the universe has no real bearing on one's life, and one can get by without it.

I would say that a kid with average intelligence would not be able to take seriously anything which is taught by someone that believes the universe is 6000 years old. So, your idea might be counter productive.

Whereas lack of biblical ethics will leave one in any number of horrific social settings,

I am Swede. Ergo, I come from an atheistic country. I am not aware of any horrific social settings.

like in prison for murder or theft, or perhaps worse like trafficked to some horror-show.

Ditto. There is no evidence that omitting to teach biblical "values" increases the odds of becoming a criminal. I actually think that the rate of Chrsitians in jail is higher than the rate of Christians outside jail.

Even ignoring the lowly 10th commandment can get one on the receiving end of violence.
Especially observing those who do not observe it.

Well, for sure not observing the first ones does not seem to be dangerous at all

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

With biblical ethics, do you include the commandements that ripping pregnant women apart can be a good thing?

You have obviously lived in a country that has had a stable population growth for many centuries.
The Bible mentions a time when there was little or no birth control, and a population could easily
outgrow the food supply. As terrible as it sounds, when this occurs, there is no other option than
the awful situation which you mention. This is precisely why the Bible teaches fidelity.

How many times have you read the Bible from cover to cover?

I would say that a kid with average intelligence would not be able to take seriously anything which is taught by someone that believes the universe is 6000 years old. So, your idea might be counter productive.

I do not see any reason why anybody would have any strong intuitions about the age of the universe.
Plenty of people throughout history would have had no concrete ideas about it.
The likes of Pythagorus, Newton, Galileo would have no reason to guess that its age was
any more 6 thousand than it would be 6 trillion years old. Its a very esoteric study.
Almost every person that has an opinion on the matter does so purely through
an argument from authority. As it is you make zero arguments that are believable.

I am Swede. Ergo, I come from an atheistic country. I am not aware of any horrific social settings.

As far as I know, Sweden was founded on Christian principles, and has the Christian emblem
on its flag. It does take several generations for morals to decay entirely.

Perhaps you have not heard of the horror called 'world war 2'?

It was less than one human lifetime ago.
You country capitulated to Hitler in a very short period of time.
(Yes you pretended to be 'neutral'. What a farce!)
Then you waited until Christians from America saved you from the atrocity
as you had no moral backbone to save yourselves.
Many Christians died saving your nation. Now when other nations
are collapsing into warfare you expel them back to their horrors.
When the war comes a-knockin' on your door, will you go crying to the
Christian Americans, British, South Africans and Aussies to save you again?

Ditto. There is no evidence that omitting to teach biblical "values" increases the odds of becoming a criminal. I actually think that the rate of Chrsitians in jail is higher than the rate of Christians outside jail.

Oh really?
See my previous statement.

Well, for sure not observing the first ones does not seem to be dangerous at all

Ciao

- viole

I think you need to think about this a bit more.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

And I started in the 80's. Dialup on splits peed modems to BBSes. And I was a young earth creationist back then, so I guess you never met me or any of my friends from my congregation. My church even published books about it. Over the years, since I turned atheist in the early 2000's, I've met many young earth creationists online. It's a miracle that you haven't. They do exist, and I've met some in real life as well, even neighbors and friends. But I got even more, my sister and the oldest of my brothers are young earth creationists. My dad was one too. And so on... I know they exist, and you just have had the luck of never encounter them.


Here's one: http://creationtoday.org/evidence-for-a-young-earth/
Here's a whole website arguing it: http://nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html (apparently someone capable enough to use HTML, which leads me to tell you that I learned to program computers and even assembly as a young earth creationists, it's not that hard)
This website, famous Creationist website, kind'a argue in favor of young earth: https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/

Also, ask around what Ken Hovind, Ken Ham, and all the other YEC spokespeople did the past 10-15 years. They were on podcasts, wrote books, on radio, even online.


Here's a list of YEC books: http://www.icr.org/article/young-earth-creationist-bibliography/
Compiled by a YEC scientist who refuses to accept science (strange, isn't it?) Henry M. Morris.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris

Strange you haven't heard about these people or even encountered them... You just been lucky.

Here's some statistics:
http://www.livescience.com/46123-many-americans-creationists.html
So 40% YEC in US.

Also, another statistics show about 70% of American have Internet.

That makes, at minimum, 10% YEC have Internet, that's some 30 million people.

---edit

I forgot. In the 80's, I was teaching computer science in a christian school at the cultish church I belonged to. Every student there believed God created Earth 6,000 years ago, and had an arsenal of arguments and "evidence" for this to be the real truth.

I am not sure if I can take you seriously, as you state your religion as 'reality's fool'.
What particular differences are there between this religion and Christianity?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Where did you get that from?! The 10 Commandments didn't enlighten the world that murder, theft, Adultry, etc. was wrong. It merely put it in writing for a specific population of people. It also gave religious leaders authority to punish for criminal activities. But, that is beyond the point of this thread.

Many people can live moral lives without adhering specifically to the 10 Commandments, but, instead, just using common sense arrived at by societal evolution. Being religious or Christian for that matter doesn't make one more or less moral ... Or at least that is what the evidence seems to show. Thus, Biblical Ethics aren't necessary. Just ethics in general are. And Ethics didn't come from the Bible. Biblical ethics came from societal ethics with some stuff about God thrown in there too.

For the better part of the last 1000 years, the majority of Western nations
have been almost entirely Christian. Those Nations with the longest traditions
of Christianity have the highest standards of living for the longest periods of time.

After ww2, many countries have had a good standard of living for the last single lifetime.
All of this was due to Christians and largely Christian nations and Christians sacrificing themselves
on the battlefields of ww2. Since then it has been quite a short time of peace.

Perhaps you need to study a bit of history sometime?