Theistic Evolution

[Storm]

"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.

So, you disapprove of religious people embracing science?

 

[Autodidact]

So, you disapprove of religious people embracing science?

I don't follow how you got this from his post.

 

[painted wolf]

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.

perhaps... or perhaps evolution is more fractal in nature. No matter how random, order will arise.
Either way it is simply speculation, as we can not 'rewind the tape'.

wa:do

 

[Storm]

I don't follow how you got this from his post.

Well, I just don't see any other point to saying "no, you're wrong" when people make the effort.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

So, you disapprove of religious people embracing science?

Storm, you know that I strongly believe that science should be embraced by people of all faiths, and should be welcoming to people of all faiths. One of the main principles of what I think of as the “ethics” of science is that it a person’s culture, religion, gender, ethnicity or eye colour should not make any difference.

But all logician has said is that Evolution has never been proven to be guided. And he is absolutely right. Now you can respond to this by saying that it cannot be disproven either, and you would be right. But logician has as much right to express his position on this matter as the theistic evolutionist does. And nothing in his post indicates he is trying to prevent theists from participating in science or expressing their opinion. He is simply expressing his disagreement.

And I happen to agree with logician (and Steven J. Gould) on this point.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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

My faith is better than your faith....:yes:

 

[tumbleweed41]

My faith is better than your faith....:yes:

Recess is over Sandy, time to come in from the play ground....:biglaugh:

 

[Smoke]

But all logician has said is that Evolution has never been proven to be guided. And he is absolutely right. Now you can respond to this by saying that it cannot be disproven either, and you would be right. But logician has as much right to express his position on this matter as the theistic evolutionist does. And nothing in his post indicates he is trying to prevent theists from participating in science or expressing their opinion. He is simply expressing his disagreement.

I think theistic evolution as Draka seems to believe it is unobjectionable, provided you find a belief in god and/or the gods unobjectionable.

I do have trouble with theistic evolution when it assigns purpose to natural processes, or imagines that humankind is the crowning achievement toward which god was working, or imagines that god guides evolution by some kind of intervention in natural processes.

Theistic evolution isn't science. It's theistic commentary on science. I don't have any general objection to that, but I think the quality of the commentary is bound to vary from one theist to another.

 

[adimus]

I think theistic evolution as Draka seems to believe it is unobjectionable, provided you find a belief in god and/or the gods unobjectionable.

I do have trouble with theistic evolution when it assigns purpose to natural processes, or imagines that humankind is the crowning achievement toward which god was working, or imagines that god guides evolution by some kind of intervention in natural processes.

Theistic evolution isn't science. It's theistic commentary on science. I don't have any general objection to that, but I think the quality of the commentary is bound to vary from one theist to another.

I believe in theistic evolution. All those variants on it are interesting. But the fact is, we don't really know, nor does the Bible say, exactly where and how God fits into the equation. I think it is best not to look for His fingerprints everywhere and just trust that God did it and is doing it. The hows are the search of science. Just search out the natural processes and allow for God to have his hand hidden in wherever and however he does if you are a theistic evolutionist. That part seems irrelevant to me. God is supernatural. So it is better to leave Him there unless He steps into the natural universe however and whenever. I think you get the drift.

I don't agree with taking pains to prove God is not there. Nor do I think it wise to do the opposite. God is not a part of the natural universe so no one should expect to find Him there. If you believe He does not exist, you won't find science telling you otherwise. Let science be science and spirituality and faith be spirituality and faith. They are different.

 

[Draka]

I think theistic evolution as Draka seems to believe it is unobjectionable, provided you find a belief in god and/or the gods unobjectionable.

I do have trouble with theistic evolution when it assigns purpose to natural processes, or imagines that humankind is the crowning achievement toward which god was working, or imagines that god guides evolution by some kind of intervention in natural processes.

Theistic evolution isn't science. It's theistic commentary on science. I don't have any general objection to that, but I think the quality of the commentary is bound to vary from one theist to another.

See that's the one thing that gets me. The idea of intervening. Why would deity need to intervene into something which it already set up? Unless one thinks that their god makes mistakes, why the need to meddle?

And humans definitely aren't some "crowning acheivement" either. It annoys me when some think like that too. We are just one of the various forms of life on this diverse planet. We just happen to hold the top rung of the food chain due to evolutionary advancements in our brains. Doesn't mean we are really all that different than any other animal. It certainly doesn't mean that there couldn't be far greater beings amongst the stars we look upon at night.

 

[fantome profane]

I think theistic evolution as Draka seems to believe it is unobjectionable, provided you find a belief in god and/or the gods unobjectionable.

I do have trouble with theistic evolution when it assigns purpose to natural processes, or imagines that humankind is the crowning achievement toward which god was working, or imagines that god guides evolution by some kind of intervention in natural processes.

Theistic evolution isn't science. It's theistic commentary on science. I don't have any general objection to that, but I think the quality of the commentary is bound to vary from one theist to another.

I absolutely agree. I would just like to add that what you say of theistic evolution also applies to “atheistic evolution. Atheistic evolution is not science but commentary on science. But as that it is no less valid. We should be able to express one position without having to apologize for not agreeing with the other. We should be able to enter debate on this concept without people feeling we are trying to shut the debate down. I thought that particular post by logician in this thread was a perfectly valid statement and an appropriate way to enter the debate.

 

[Autodidact]

I think there's another version of theistic evolution than that God is guiding evolution. That is a Deist God, who set up the whole shebang, decreed the laws of nature and logic, lit the fuse, and let it roll. That would be one heck of a God.

Of course, that sort of God would not have or need priests or temples, and no one could claim divine inspiration to boss other people around or decide who should have what sort of sex with whom, and so, outside of our founding fathers, is not very popular.

 

[painted wolf]

That's how I've always viewed it.
Why should Creator meddle in a process so well set up to do it's work?

It's not only unpopular, but difficult for some to understand. They are so used to an all powerful tinkering god that the hands-off approach is unthinkable.

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think there's another version of theistic evolution than that God is guiding evolution. That is a Deist God, who set up the whole shebang, decreed the laws of nature and logic, lit the fuse, and let it roll. That would be one heck of a God.

Of course, that sort of God would not have or need priests or temples, and no one could claim divine inspiration to boss other people around or decide who should have what sort of sex with whom, and so, outside of our founding fathers, is not very popular.

Nicely put, thank you!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Recess is over Sandy, time to come in from the play ground....:biglaugh:

But I'm having to much fun!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I think theistic evolution as Draka seems to believe it is unobjectionable, provided you find a belief in god and/or the gods unobjectionable.

I do have trouble with theistic evolution when it assigns purpose to natural processes, or imagines that humankind is the crowning achievement toward which god was working, or imagines that god guides evolution by some kind of intervention in natural processes.

Theistic evolution isn't science. It's theistic commentary on science. I don't have any general objection to that, but I think the quality of the commentary is bound to vary from one theist to another.

Looking at all of the species that went extinct it would seem that the theistic evolutionary god had some trouble getting it right.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Looking at all of the species that went extinct it would seem that the theistic evolutionary god had some trouble getting it right.

Yeah, makes the idea of a perfect god having his hand in things seem kind of dumb.

 

[logician]

I think there's another version of theistic evolution than that God is guiding evolution. That is a Deist God, who set up the whole shebang, decreed the laws of nature and logic, lit the fuse, and let it roll. That would be one heck of a God.

Of course, that sort of God would not have or need priests or temples, and no one could claim divine inspiration to boss other people around or decide who should have what sort of sex with whom, and so, outside of our founding fathers, is not very popular.

The so-called deistic god is not a god at all according to probably 95 percent or more of god-believers, who demand at least some "hands-on" activilty from their god.

 

[Storm]

The so-called deistic god is not a god at all according to probably 95 percent or more of god-believers, who demand at least some "hands-on" activilty from their god.

Source?

 

[Smoke]

Looking at all of the species that went extinct it would seem that the theistic evolutionary god had some trouble getting it right.

I make no excuses for gods I don't believe in, but it seems to me that the YEC god had quite a bit of trouble getting it right, too.