why do some theists believe in Darwinian evolution?

[Jan Ardena]

The authors are at this stage only presenting possible explanations, and it's not about experimentation so much as it is about analyzing new data in the light of existing information. So if you're asking me if I consider the article to be completely factual, then the answer is no, I don't. It's not designed to be.

But let's look at a hypothetical scenario:

There are a bunch of researchers who perform some experiments which result in definitive findings that they believe to be factual. They submit their results for peer-review and the work is subsequently confirmed by several independent research teams. At this point I'd be likely to accept the validity of the work, even though I can't verify the results myself first-hand. I would however concede that there is a chance that everyone could be wrong and that therefore any conclusions I might have drawn could be based on a faulty premise. This is my default position with regard to anything new I learn.

But now let's further imagine that the findings in questions are found to have implications across a broad range of different disciplines, and that in order for their validity to remain intact, it must be shown that each and every one of these disciplines can uphold these findings. In our little hypothetical here, not only does this turn out to be the case, but our understanding of many of these other disciplines is enhanced as a result. As time goes by, discovery after discovery is made that further confirm the original findings, and eventually we end up not only with thousands of scientists who in the process of trying to understand the original findings even better end up piling on the evidence even further, we have tens of thousands of people working within related and at least minimally overlapping disciplines that are also constantly making new discoveries, not one of which has ever falsified the original findings but rather continue to support them.

In the above scenario, yes, I'd accept the findings.



It was not a rebuttal so much as it was simply a response. You can decide for yourself whether or not you think it was a good one.

Like I said, there seemed to be alot of technical jargon, so I get the feeling he is appealing purley to other scienctists and people with a firm grasp of techjarg. The thing with that is it could go on for years, and never progress.
Alot of people are getting tired of that stuff and just see it as elitism.

However one thing was clear, he, like you, gave the impression that the opposing theory was all excited like a bunch of kids at party, implying they should all calm down.

jan.

jan.

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

Socratic Spelunker,

Hi SS, we had a long discussion regarding this topic a year or two ago, so I know your reasons.
If I may, I would like to advance the discussion by asking if your source of scripture is purely biblical?

jan.

I believe so, and by that I mean my ideas may have been shaped by other books, but concerning the creation, I can't immediately think of any other book that directly shaped my belief.

However, my belief in old-earth creationism is also heavily influenced by the findings of science, not scripture. Not to be disrespectful, but I think young-earth creationism (the idea that the earth is 6000 years old, etc.) is beyond demonstrably improbable.

 

[jpappl]

. . . now deceased naturalist Kirtley Mather perhaps said it best . . . . "creation is a fact and evolution is a process" . . . so cannot directly compare 'apple-to-oranges'. KM was a scientist who believed in God.

wlminex

Creation is a fact because we are here. So in that sense we were created by some process, was it God or evolution. He answers that with the second statement, but he was born in the late 1800's most then were indoctrinated into some religious belief, ie that there is a god.

Lost's of scientists believe in god, but that doesn't mean they believe in religious creation stories.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I believe so, and by that I mean my ideas may have been shaped by other books, but concerning the creation, I can't immediately think of any other book that directly shaped my belief.

However, my belief in old-earth creationism is also heavily influenced by the findings of science, not scripture. Not to be disrespectful, but I think young-earth creationism (the idea that the earth is 6000 years old, etc.) is beyond demonstrably improbable.

Why haven't you looked at other scriptures?

Do you accept evolution as fact because you know and understand it,
or do you prefer it??

jan.

 

[Ophiolite]

What is the point of evolution?

jan.

why do you think there has to be a point?

 

[Jan Ardena]

why do you think there has to be a point?

A theist believes in tGod.
God has a point/plan.
Therefore evolution is a part of that.

From the other perpective. Not all atheists understand
evolution, yet they accept it. Why?

jan.

 

[AlexG]

Not all atheists understand
evolution, yet they accept it. Why?

Because unlike religious beliefs, there is actual evidence for it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because unlike religious beliefs, there is actual evidence for it.

Is the evidence obvious?


jan.

 

[Ophiolite]

A theist believes in tGod.
God has a point/plan.
Therefore evolution is a part of that.

That does not follow. Evolution may simply be an incidental consequence of the actions that support the central plan. Theists do not need to believe that God is concerned with the death of every butterfly.

AFrom the other perpective. Not all atheists understand
evolution, yet they accept it. Why?

I think these would fall into one of three categories:
1. They are comfortable with the validity of the scientific process and are therefore willing to accept the word of acknowledged experts.
2. They are dogmatic atheists who accept what seems to them to be most antithetical to theism.
3. They just aren't very bright.

Of these views only the first one has any hint of rationality.

 

[kx000]

Because unlike religious beliefs, there is actual evidence for it.

Evidence of the end of the world, brought on just as it says in Revelation. Arm your self.

 

[AlexG]

Evidence of the end of the world, brought on just as it says in Revelation. Arm your self.

Thanks to the internet, you no longer have to stand on a street corner with a sign yelling the world is about to end.

 

[kx000]

Thanks to the internet, you no longer have to stand on a street corner with a sign yelling the world is about to end.

Yea, but in my version its not giant comets falling from the sky, its a massive war, and it is going to happen.

 

[jpappl]

Yea, but in my version its not giant comets falling from the sky, its a massive war, and it is going to happen.

When ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ophiolite,

why do you think there has to be a point?

A theist believes in tGod.
God has a point/plan.
Therefore evolution is a part of that.

That does not follow. Evolution may simply be an incidental consequence of the actions that support the central plan.

If creation is not just seen as a incidental consequence in support of the plan, why wouldn't evolution?

1. They are comfortable with the validity of the scientific process and are therefore willing to accept the word of acknowledged experts.

You mean they have faith in something they don't fully understand?


jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Yea, but in my version its not giant comets falling from the sky, its a massive war, and it is going to happen.

I never would have imagined that people would have a war.

 

[wellwisher]

When I was younger, I tried to reconcile the biblical stories of Genesis with the scientific evidence of evolution. Although these two seemed mutually exclusive, with most people drawing this line in the sand, the way I reconciled these two was to use the assumption that evolution was about biological change, while creationism was about a sudden progression within human consciousness.

The human mind can advance humans via education even without genetic change. We can invent clothing, instead of waiting for the DNA to give us fur. Education is another example, where selective advantage, does not have to be a function of genetic changes. One can learn a skill and gain an advantage. This suggested genesis tells us about that time when humans broke away from genetics leading.

What gave me that idea was the date of genesis occurs about the time when human civilization begans to appear. This wide range of change within human behavior, logically implied an advancement in the human mind and consciousness. Even if we assumed genetic change and selective advantage, too much changed in a short period time to be a direct function of directed genetic changes. This range of change could be better explained with an advancement within human consciousness. The slow boat of natural evolution via genetics had docked, and the human mind was able to leave that boat and walk ashore.

One obvious advancement, discussed in genesis, was the new ability to theorize about creation. If is doubtful an ape will contemplate cosmology. Yet, the new humans began to theorize about the universe (let there be light), life and consciousness. They write about it in genesis. There is farming, commerce, philosophy, religion, government, etc. The human mind changed with innovative thinking and education a by-product. The new multiplier of the mind is outpacing genetics and causing problems.

Based on the premise of the human mind somehow advancing (humans leave the slow boat of genetics, with the brain the subsequent progression), there is a multiplier effect in terms of conscious progression. The symbols of Genesis, tells us how the ancients explained these many changes and the growing pains, based on their new human mind observing their reality, but in the context of how their mind had changed.

As a scientist, this reconciled both for me. There was room for evolution, leading to that point in time. Evolution continues at its slow pace with wisodn teeth going away. There is also that parallel change, when the human mind docked, left that slow boat of natural change, and started to advance faster than biology, but with the latter still having an impact; instincts slowly fading into history.

 

[kx000]

When ?

10-20 years. My guess is 2020.

 

[Dywyddyr]

When I was younger, I tried to reconcile the biblical stories of Genesis with the scientific evidence of evolution.

Why?
Have you also tried to reconcile Greek mythology with evolution?

What gave me that idea was the date of genesis occurs about the time when human civilization begans to appear.

Yet Genesis says nothing about civilisation...

 

[Dywyddyr]

10-20 years. My guess is 2020.

And your guess is based on what?

 

[wlminex]

. . . perhaps God created the ingredients . . and used evolution (ONE of God's processes) to 'bake-the-cake! . . . if 1 day (God's) = 1000 years, and the cake is still baking ? ? ? ! . . . perhaps in God's 'realm' there is no real 'time' as we understand it (perhaps a 'man-made' construct for convenience?) and (relatively) one day could be eons . . . or forever.

wlminex