Theistic Evolution?

[Theunis]

True. Do you think religions invented the idea of original sin, to explain away (lack of a better phrase) ...human suffering?

If we answer that question as 'yes,' then we are suggesting that people only suffer due to their sin. Interestingly, and sadly...many Christians actually believe this. I have had the experience of meeting a few recently, who think just that...that the sum total of suffering is from current sin (our own deliberate sin) and original sin.

I'm really glad to have posted this topic, you are all very insightful, and have given much food for thought!!

What really and truly puzzles me is why theists and atheists appear to totally ignore what is written in Genesis 1:26
viz God created some things and then asked the earth to bring forth it's own and when the earth did so he found it good blessed it's (earth's) works. To me this clearly indicates that Creationism and Evolution have, from the beginning walked hand in hand !

 

[Deidre]

What really and truly puzzles me is why theists and atheists appear to totally ignore what is written in Genesis 1:26
viz God created some things and then asked the earth to bring forth it's own and when the earth did so he found it good blessed it's (earth's) works. To me this clearly indicates that Creationism and Evolution have, from the beginning walked hand in hand !

Never really viewed it that way, hmmmm! Interesting!

 

[leibowde84]

ideas are bullet proof mr. creedy.

explaining something in mathematical and/or rigorous terms may make you feel comfortable but ideas can be explained innumerable ways.

So, you can't define God in a way that differentiates God from things like "love" and "light"?

 

[leibowde84]

God (as traditionally understood) is supernatural (that which exists "above and beyond nature").

Right, but that isn't the fault of science. If anything, it is the fault of God. But, science cannot recognize things that aren't supported by verifiable evidence. So, it's nothing against God in particular. Science merely discounts anything that cannot be measured in some way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What really and truly puzzles me is why theists and atheists appear to totally ignore what is written in Genesis 1:26
viz God created some things and then asked the earth to bring forth it's own and when the earth did so he found it good blessed it's (earth's) works. To me this clearly indicates that Creationism and Evolution have, from the beginning walked hand in hand !

"What is written in Genesis", if taken literally (e.g. young earth creationism) or semi-literally (e.g. "day-age" creationism), contradicts evolutionary science and the evidence at hand.

... and if we take it as purely metaphor, there are any number of ways it could be interpreted.

 

[LuisDantas]

True enough, @9-10ths_Penguin ... but is that really any different from so much else in the Bible?

I don't think too many Christians defend throwing stones at family members to punish them these days.

At the end of the day, literalism is simply not a good idea.

 

[Gambit]

Right, but that isn't the fault of science.

I never argued it was the fault of science. I simply argued that science seeks to give only naturalistic explanations. (Supernaturalistic explanations are not scientific.) In fact, I have furnished you with documentation to support that claim.

Also, don't misconstrue what I said previously about science being atheistic. Science cannot say whether God exists or doesn't exist. However, science is atheistic in the sense (I'm qualifying what I mean by "atheistic" in this context) that it cannot invoke God. In particular, the Darwinian theory of evolution is atheistic in this sense.Why? Because it seeks to give a naturalistic explanation to what appears to be supernaturally designed.

"The whole point about evolutionary theory is that you do not need anyone to direct it, least of all consciously." (source: pg. 239, "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore)

Finally, you seem to be under the impression that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God. (While scientific evidence may be the only form of evidence that the atheist accepts. It is not the only form of evidence.) And I can assure you that historical Christianity teaches that there is evidence for the existence of God. In fact, natural theology is biblical.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" - Romans 1:20

I do not claim to be a Christian, but you do. Therefore, I surprised to hear you argue that nature does not prevent us any evidence for God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True enough, @9-10ths_Penguin ... but is that really any different from so much else in the Bible?

I don't think too many Christians defend throwing stones at family members to punish them these days.

There are a surprising number of Christians who believe that this is a literal requirement of the literal "Old Law" actually handed down by God through Moses. It's just that they also believe that a literal Jesus Christ literally released them from having to follow the "Old Law".

At the end of the day, literalism is simply not a good idea.

No argument here.

 

[Desert Snake]

So, you can't define God in a way that differentiates God from things like "love" and "light"?

Hate and darkness.(?)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hate and darkness.(?)

You define God as "hate and darkness"?

 

[Desert Snake]

Right, but that isn't the fault of science. If anything, it is the fault of God. But, science cannot recognize things that aren't supported by verifiable evidence. So, it's nothing against God in particular. Science merely discounts anything that cannot be measured in some way.

Evolution=/=science. technically.
But who's being technical?
The big bang theory similarily has gone through mutations in arguments, adapting to the changing scientific evidence. The original idea of course is no longer viable.
Similarily, evolution will morph into a 'different argument'.

~pizza man

 

[Theunis]

"What is written in Genesis", if taken literally (e.g. young earth creationism) or semi-literally (e.g. "day-age" creationism), contradicts evolutionary science and the evidence at hand.

... and if we take it as purely metaphor, there are any number of ways it could be interpreted.

I think that sometimes when there is no proof either way, one should take some things at face value, to stop unnecessary speculations and arguments,
We can theorize or think that things may be a metaphor but because of the lapse of time we cannot say for sure if it is so or not.
For instance there is nothing in evolution to be found concerning the origin of the human species. There have been attempted frauds such as sticking arms onto ape skeletons in unnatural positions but scientists have debunked such attempts.

Where we find fanatics, who are the curse of lucid thoughts and humanity, we will find that they will always resort to heated debates without really saying anything constructive.

I give no references for this is only my opinion.

 

[Desert Snake]

You define God as "hate and darkness"?

It's viable. Just examine the ideas in the /right/ (subjective), context. All that was specified, was descriptions.

 

[leibowde84]

I never argued it was the fault of science. I simply argued that science seeks to give only naturalistic explanations. (Supernaturalistic explanations are not scientific.) In fact, I have furnished you with documentation to support that claim.

Also, don't misconstrue what I said previously about science being atheistic. Science cannot say whether God exists or doesn't exist. However, science is atheistic in the sense (I'm qualifying what I mean by "atheistic" in this context) that it cannot invoke God. In particular, the Darwinian theory of evolution is atheistic in this sense.Why? Because it seeks to give a naturalistic explanation to what appears to be supernaturally designed.



Finally, you seem to be under the impression that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God. (While scientific evidence may be the only form of evidence that the atheist accepts. It is not the only form of evidence.) And I can assure you that historical Christianity teaches that there is evidence for the existence of God. In fact, natural theology is biblical.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" - Romans 1:20

I do not claim to be a Christian, but you do. Therefore, I surprised to learn that you don't seem to understand this.

There is evidence, sure. But, there isn't verifiable evidence, so any level of certainty is out the window. And, God of the Gaps arguments don't really get us anywhere, and they don't provide any evidence. I also see that passage from Paul in Romans as being incorrect. I think it is clearly not that obvious.

 

[leibowde84]

Hate and darkness.(?)

That's how you define God? Hate and darkness?

 

[Desert Snake]

It's viable. Just examine the ideas in the /right/ (subjective), context. All that was specified, was descriptions.

^

That's how you define God? Hate and darkness?

 

[leibowde84]

Evolution=/=science. technically.
But who's being technical?
The big bang theory similarily has gone through mutations in arguments, adapting to the changing scientific evidence. The original idea of course is no longer viable.
Similarily, evolution will morph into a 'different argument'.

~pizza man

The Theory of Evolution is certainly a scientific theory, confirmed through repeated experimentation, observation and predictions. That doesn't mean that it is a scientific law or absolute fact as is, but it is pretty damn close. But, since it is a scientific theory, there is no issue with it being improved upon in the future. That is what science is all about. There are no scientific authorities.

 

[leibowde84]

^

??

 

[Theunis]

There are a surprising number of Christians who believe that this is a literal requirement of the literal "Old Law" actually handed down by God through Moses. It's just that they also believe that a literal Jesus Christ literally released them from having to follow the "Old Law".


No argument here.

Just an aside the San people in South Africa (also known as bushmen) who have an ancient spiritual view of the universe say any person who throws stones at another is a madman and they shun him

 

[Desert Snake]

??

The top quote, was my answer to your query. That question was already asked,