Theistic Evolution

[adimus]

I recently left traditional Creationism for theistic evolution. I was looking for discussion about it, mostly from another theistic evolutionist Christian like me. This is such a hairy issue that I have not even told my wife or any of my fellow Christian community members.

 

[painted wolf]

I know there are a few Christians who hang out here and accept evolution as the work of God. I'm sure they will be glad to chat about the subject with you.

I'm a theist, though not a Christian, and as a Biologist I have no problems with evolution. I'm also always willing to talk about the subject.

However if you find you are not getting as much response as you'd like, you could try starting a new thread... But I'd give them some time to find that this thread is back up and in use.

wa:do

 

[adimus]

I know there are a few Christians who hang out here and accept evolution as the work of God. I'm sure they will be glad to chat about the subject with you.

I'm a theist, though not a Christian, and as a Biologist I have no problems with evolution. I'm also always willing to talk about the subject.

However if you find you are not getting as much response as you'd like, you could try starting a new thread... But I'd give them some time to find that this thread is back up and in use.

wa:do

We'll see. So as a theist, are you then Agnostic? You believe in a transcendent reality but you are not sure exactly what that may be about?

 

[Willamena]

As a person somewhat distant to the topic, I would have to say that Dunemeister's image of a God responsible for change makes the most sense of 'theistic evolution'. It's a god-of-the-gaps, but filling a gap that I have yet to see filled by any other arguments.

 

[adimus]

As a person somewhat distant to the topic, I would have to say that Dunemeister's image of a God responsible for change makes the most sense of 'theistic evolution'. It's a god-of-the-gaps, but filling a gap that I have yet to see filled by any other arguments.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you meant exactly. I think evolution and naturalism in general provides plenty of rhyme and reason behind natural processes as the mode of creation coming about. But one gap that remains is the origin of matter and energy initially. Multiple universes simply passes the buck, even if they are real.

 

[painted wolf]

We'll see. So as a theist, are you then Agnostic? You believe in a transcendent reality but you are not sure exactly what that may be about?

I'm non-christian... my view of god is quite different from any of the Judeo-christian faiths.

wa:do

 

[Willamena]

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you meant exactly. I think evolution and naturalism in general provides plenty of rhyme and reason behind natural processes as the mode of creation coming about. But one gap that remains is the origin of matter and energy initially. Multiple universes simply passes the buck, even if they are real.

'Naturalism', like 'science' that followed it, describes the world. It does not address the question of "Why?"

 

[adimus]

'Naturalism', like 'science' that followed it, describes the world. It does not address the question of "Why?"

Good point and I agree.

 

[Yerda]

'Naturalism', like 'science' that followed it, describes the world. It does not address the question of "Why?"

What does that mean?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Why is the idea of Theistic Evolution so hard for some people to grasp?

I argue on the side of science and evolution in debates and my "theism" is questioned. As I'm also sure there are probably a few others out there that, although I argue on the same side as them, probably question my intelligence for being a theist.

It is entirely reasonable to wholeheartedly believe in evolution and still believe in deity. One can believe that the scientific forces all around us, that nature itself, is the method by which deity develops all life. It is not all that far out there to accept that we evolved from primitive life forms and yet believe that nature guided us this way for a purpose. It is also not unreasonable to think that this is not where we end on the evolutionary train. One can have faith in a plan even if you don't know what that plan is.

One can be a theist...of any religion, and easily reconcile evolution and faith. Even if your scripture describes something differently, we know it is not fact...and therefore is obviously metaphor. It does not lose anything by being metaphor. In fact...it should actually gain meaning by taking it as metaphor instead of at just face value. To believe there is more behind words than their face value should inspire...not disappoint.

So to atheists who may think all theists are batty for what we believe in, know that I, and others, accept the exact same facts as you, but just think there can be meaning behind the facts. We are on the same side of science.

To the other theists who don't believe it is possible to really have faith in a deity and accept evolution at the same time, know that we do and are as much theists as you are.

As a narrow-minded Biblist I believe in the God presented by the Bible not the god limited by science. I suppose that a Taoist why prescribes to the theory of Yin/Yang that it is perfectly reasonable to have two conflicting views on origins.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Draka, I support you in your quest for truth. As a Deist, I believe science, reason and natural law can coincide with a "Prime Mover" or God who set forth into action this universe.

 

[tumbleweed41]

As a narrow-minded Biblist I believe in the God presented by the Bible not the god limited by science. I suppose that a Taoist why prescribes to the theory of Yin/Yang that it is perfectly reasonable to have two conflicting views on origins.

No conflict Sandy, only reason.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why is the idea of Theistic Evolution so hard for some people to grasp?

I argue on the side of science and evolution in debates and my "theism" is questioned. As I'm also sure there are probably a few others out there that, although I argue on the same side as them, probably question my intelligence for being a theist.

It is entirely reasonable to wholeheartedly believe in evolution and still believe in deity. One can believe that the scientific forces all around us, that nature itself, is the method by which deity develops all life. It is not all that far out there to accept that we evolved from primitive life forms and yet believe that nature guided us this way for a purpose. It is also not unreasonable to think that this is not where we end on the evolutionary train. One can have faith in a plan even if you don't know what that plan is.

One can be a theist...of any religion, and easily reconcile evolution and faith. Even if your scripture describes something differently, we know it is not fact...and therefore is obviously metaphor. It does not lose anything by being metaphor. In fact...it should actually gain meaning by taking it as metaphor instead of at just face value. To believe there is more behind words than their face value should inspire...not disappoint.

So to atheists who may think all theists are batty for what we believe in, know that I, and others, accept the exact same facts as you, but just think there can be meaning behind the facts. We are on the same side of science.

To the other theists who don't believe it is possible to really have faith in a deity and accept evolution at the same time, know that we do and are as much theists as you are.

I think for any religion to remain viable, it has to be able to reconcile it's views/teachings with our updated understanding of the real world. I also don't understand why people create and hold onto these types of false dichotomies (e.g., god/evolution). If you start from the belief that there is a god, then anything we learn about the world can be attributed to that god. There is no point in trying to deny reality based on some outdated perspective on how things work.

Ultimately, since science has proven itself a much better tool for explaining and understanding the world, religions would be much better off dropping any pretenses that they have any answers regarding the physical world and focus on their more philosophical components.

If religion tries to take on science on its terms, it's going to lose. Religion is there for people who need answers to questions that do not have answers. Science answers questions that are answerable. They don't serve the same purpose, so they shouldn't even be seen in opposition.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No conflict Sandy, only reason.

Huh? How about logic?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Huh? How about logic?

Reason is Logic, you value your faith above both logic and reason, I use reason and logic to reach my faith.:yes:

 

[Autodidact]

Something teleological has "purpose." A carbon atom has no purpose. It just is. It does what it does without serving some purpose. The same can't be said about a kidney. A kidney has purpose. It makes sense to say it's working properly or not. We can't say that a carbon atom "isn't working" or "isn't functioning properly." This is the sort of thing I had in mind with my admittedly clumsy wording.

Life, to my mind, is "purposive matter" or "teleological matter". Yes, I know I'm not using the word "matter" in its strict sense as physicists would use it, but I think you know what I mean. I'm also happy to admit that purposiveness comes in degrees, with carbon atoms at the very low end and human beings at the very high end. It may be very difficult to determine at which point in this continuum "purposive" matter emerges, but there are obvious examples such as I've already mentioned, and they can serve.

Interesting. I would disagree that living things necessarily have a purpose. We may have goals, but not necessarily a purpose. I would say that living things, like non-living things, just are.

 

[logician]

Interesting. I would disagree that living things necessarily have a purpose. We may have goals, but not necessarily a purpose. I would say that living things, like non-living things, just are.

Evolution certainly has no evident purpose, as it set twiddling its evolutionary thumbs for a half a billion years in the unicellular mode. I personally don't believe there is any grand purpose in anything beyond what we make of our own existence.

 

[adimus]

I think for any religion to remain viable, it has to be able to reconcile it's views/teachings with our updated understanding of the real world. I also don't understand why people create and hold onto these types of false dichotomies (e.g., god/evolution). If you start from the belief that there is a god, then anything we learn about the world can be attributed to that god. There is no point in trying to deny reality based on some outdated perspective on how things work.

Ultimately, since science has proven itself a much better tool for explaining and understanding the world, religions would be much better off dropping any pretenses that they have any answers regarding the physical world and focus on their more philosophical components.

If religion tries to take on science on its terms, it's going to lose. Religion is there for people who need answers to questions that do not have answers. Science answers questions that are answerable. They don't serve the same purpose, so they shouldn't even be seen in opposition.

Good post.

 

[Autodidact]

What totalstranger said.

 

[logician]

"It is not all that far out there to accept that we evolved from primitive life forms and yet believe that nature guided us this way for a purpose. It is also not unreasonable to think that this is not where we end on the evolutionary train. One can have faith in a plan even if you don't know what that plan is.
"

I disagree fundamentally with statement. Evolution has never had a proven direction or goal. Indeed, as S J Gould so eloquently put it in "Wonderful Life", row the tape of life once again, and you would not expect the same results by a long shot. There were too many random occurrences along the away to apply "purpose" to the course of evolution.