Why is the concept of theistic evolution unacceptable to you?

[SciWriter]

Judge: “Here is my ruling. Actually, Poseidon causes plate tectonics, and Ra initiates nuclear fusion in the sun.”

The audience was stunned.

Judge: “Ha, got you all! Just joking, for no one today, except Pat Robertson types, appeals to these Gods to explain earthquakes or solar fusion; yet, it is proposed that a higher realm (called ‘God’) directs these things, as well as all nature and especially the mind of the brain (via a ‘soul’). These thoughts are from the mythic age, and some are still around today. Some would even go to the extremes of throwing all of science out the window as ‘dogma’; yet, their computers, devices, and appliances run pretty well on this ‘dogma’.

The Theists have shown nothing, while the atheists have shown much, so it is a complete shut-out. The case for Theistic Evolution is denied and dismissed.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Theistic evolution

Make sure you read the section entitled Spectrum of viewpoints so you get an idea of the scope of the subject matter.

Over the last 150 years or so, more and more religious people have come to embrace evolution as a process of divine creation. In other words, that it was either the inevitable result of the way God designed the universe, or a process that was initiated and subsequently guided to some extent by His hand.

A literal reading of genesis (for example) doesn't lend itself very well to incorporating evolution of course, at least not according to the creationist camp anyway. But as noted on Wikipedia, "Christians have considered allegorical interpretations of Genesis since long before the development of Darwin's theory of evolution...". So, why rally so hard against the most well-evidenced scientific theory in the history of the world instead of simply embracing it as one of the pinnacles of your God's creative prowess?

Theistic evolution serves Darwins idea of evolution.
Evolution is an atheists fairy tale that gives them something to feel justified in their atheism, IMO.
Eventually what will happen regarding theistic evolution, is that pressure will be applied to drop the ''theistic''.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

Theistic evolution serves Darwins idea of evolution.
Evolution is an atheists fairy tale that gives them something to feel justified in their atheism, IMO.
Eventually what will happen regarding theistic evolution, is that pressure will be applied to drop the ''theistic''.

jan.

In your opinion? Would this opinion come from the same place that believes the Vedas are the source of all religion?

I mean, it's actually pretty funny at this point. It's like, you know we know you're full of crap and don't even have a working knowledge of your own wacky, cobbled-together pseudo-religion, let alone enough of a grasp on biology to question the theory of evolution--which is a fact, by the way, not a fairy tale, not a "theory" in the colloquial sense, but a fact that can and has been witnessed first-hand--so at this point it's like watching professional wrestling. Everybody know's what it really is, but the players aren't going to own up, especially not in the middle of a show.

 

[spidergoat]

He didn't kill himself lol. He can if he chooses, but he won't need to, because he has unlimited power to make things how wants them. Me too, btw.

He can't kill himself by definition. Not everything is possible.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion

In your opinion? Would this opinion come from the same place that believes the Vedas are the source of all religion?

Do you know what that source is?

I mean, it's actually pretty funny at this point. It's like, you know we know you're full of crap and don't even have a working knowledge of your own wacky, cobbled-together pseudo-religion, let alone enough of a grasp on biology to question the theory of evolution--which is a fact, by the way, not a fairy tale, not a "theory" in the colloquial sense, but a fact that can and has been witnessed first-hand--so at this point it's like watching professional wrestling. Everybody know's what it really is, but the players aren't going to own up, especially not in the middle of a show.

Yeah! Sure! You witnessed evolution of the species right from the first darwinian cell.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

...Yeah! Sure! You witnessed evolution of the species right from the first darwinian cell.

jan.

That's an unreasonable demand.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's an unreasonable demand.

I know, but it's a suitable response IMO.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

The unreasonable is suitable to you? Not surprised.

 

[Balerion]

Balerion



Do you know what that source is?

The source of all religion, you mean? The human mind. There is no founding text of "all religion." There are texts we have in our possession that are a thousand years older than the Vedas, and completely unrelated to it. There are traditions even older than that from places that could not have had any contact with that region of the world. These are facts, and you ignore them so that your little fantasy about the Vedas (which isn't even the source of all religion in the region; it's nothing more or less than the earliest texts of Hinduism). What's your excuse for that?

Yeah! Sure! You witnessed evolution of the species right from the first darwinian cell.

jan.

I don't need to in order to know that evolution happens. If you want to posit some Prime Mover at the start, have at it. But once you start making factually inaccurate claims such as "The Vedas are the source of all religion," I have to check you on it.

 

[Rav]

One thing is certain. If the veracity of a theology is compromised if evolution is true, then that theology is indeed compromised*. For those of you out there who care about finding actual truth, you can take this to the bank. Some things really can be legitimately ruled out.

*The truth value of the specific theology is compromised, not the truth value of the general claim that some sort of god exists.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The source of all religion, you mean? The human mind. There is no founding text of "all religion." There are texts we have in our possession that are a thousand years older than the Vedas, and completely unrelated to it. There are traditions even older than that from places that could not have had any contact with that region of the world. These are facts, and you ignore them so that your little fantasy about the Vedas (which isn't even the source of all religion in the region; it's nothing more or less than the earliest texts of Hinduism). What's your excuse for that?



I don't need to in order to know that evolution happens. If you want to posit some Prime Mover at the start, have at it. But once you start making factually inaccurate claims such as "The Vedas are the source of all religion," I have to check you on it.

Do you have any links to those texts?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

I mean, it's actually pretty funny at this point.

I bet you're not laughing though!

It's like, you know we know you're full of crap

No, you're full of crap. You should learn to listen to what is being told to
you.

..and don't even have a working knowledge of your own wacky, cobbled-together pseudo-religion,

You don't even know what religion is, save that which is institutional.

..let alone enough of a grasp on biology to question the theory of evolution

I know enough about it to know that other scientists who know everything about it, find gaping holes in it.
If the likes of me can't question the theory of evolution, then it is an elitists ideology.

which is a fact,

Not from all perspectives.

by the way, not a fairy tale, not a "theory" in the colloquial sense, but a fact that can and has been witnessed first-hand--so at this point it's like watching professional wrestling. Everybody know's what it really is, but the players aren't going to own up, especially not in the middle of a show.

Not from all perspectives.
Plus, the way you try to ram it down peoples throat, and discredit people who don't agree, like
some ignorant cult from the dark ages, where if you don't agree, you're not worthy of the title human being,
kinda shows us your true colours and identity.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

One thing is certain. If the veracity of a theology is compromised if evolution is true, then that theology is indeed compromised*. For those of you out there who care about finding actual truth, you can take this to the bank. Some things really can be legitimately ruled out.

*The truth value of the specific theology is compromised, not the truth value of the general claim that some sort of god exists.

Theology isn't compromised by evolution, because it doesn't matter whether or not evolution is true. It makes not one jot of difference to the human being, as the
only connection that is being made to it, are your claims. Theology on the other hand is connected to the human being in every single way, unless they decide not
to have anything to do with it. But I doubt that is even possible.

Truth has to be experienced to know and understand it, you can't just come up with some idea to fit your world view and expect to take over something
that is actually profound, and has meaning and substance the human being.

jan.

 

[SciWriter]

Natural Selection’s Main Chooser

Death is the chooser, the selector, in general, especially before breeding, and even thereafter if the brood is yet small, or must be, which can be for other reasons.

Grand and glorious death, although not so great for the individual personally, drives in the main the descent (ascent) with modification, for genes can then be passed on to the offspring as mixed by the parents, the dominant genes showing over the recessives, there being two genes for each trait, one from each parent. Inbreeding is dangerous since a recessive from both parents will show as a trait, those being common in relatives. Recessives are not always dangerous, as in blue for an eye color, although brown is dominant there, with only blue-blue resulting in blue eyes, and blue-brown, brown-blue, and brown-brown all giving brown eyes.

Ah, Death, where is thy sting, to triumph whilst I die, asks Shelley, yet without it not much would have changed. Death sifts the best from the best, the fitter from the less, to carry on. Or as Robert Ardley puts in in his book, ‘African Genesis’, if I can recall… Death chooses the pointed from the pointless, the wise from the silly…

With death as the selector, change can often be slow, which is why evolutionary change may stretch over millions and even billions of years, yet it is this long yardstick that ever sticks in the throat of the unlearned, it nearly being totally incomprehensible in its length.

We are indeed made of time, death, and stardust, since it was time and stardust that made us Earth’s living, and continuing, guest as quick death sifted the rest from the best, and it is those three, as our birthright, that also form our epitaph, for, as our time expires death comes, and then dust is left.
The inscription on our urn might as well read that

From Heaven’s stars came our dust eterne,
As time’s seas nurtured thee and thine in turn.
From time, death, and dust we thus became,
And by this, thus, and that we must return.

 

[Rav]

Theology isn't compromised by evolution

Evolution does indeed compromise the truth value of any theology that is in conflict with it, especially when that theology includes a claim of inerrancy as a critical component. For example, the truth value of Christian fundamentalist theology is compromised in this way, but theologies based on more liberal interpretations of Biblical scripture may not be.

The point is that from the perspective of someone who believes in God and is seeking the fullness of the truth about creation, the fact of evolution provides a way for them to steer clear of theologies that contain major errors. After all, I would expect that anyone who is seeking God would not only be looking for profound religious experience, but also a superior understanding of the reality of life on this small blue planet of ours (the mechanisms that brought it about being a significant part of that).

 

[wlminex]

Again . . . to quote Dr. Kirtley Mather (deceased, I might add, and a Christian) . . . "Creation and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive . . . . creation is a fact . . . and evolution is a process . . ."

 

[kx000]

He can't kill himself by definition. Not everything is possible.

You are tangled. God can be a taco yesterday, but on Tuesday, thats another story. He can exist backwards while not existing at all. He can be everywhere. Why not give him credit?

 

[Balerion]

Theology isn't compromised by evolution, because it doesn't matter whether or not evolution is true. It makes not one jot of difference to the human being, as the
only connection that is being made to it, are your claims. Theology on the other hand is connected to the human being in every single way, unless they decide not
to have anything to do with it. But I doubt that is even possible.

Truth has to be experienced to know and understand it, you can't just come up with some idea to fit your world view and expect to take over something
that is actually profound, and has meaning and substance the human being.

jan.

While I agree that science does not have to negatively affect theology, it really depends on the plasticity of an individual's beliefs. Someone like you, for example, who believes that the Vedas are the source of religion, would have their worldview shattered by basic archaeology, and must ignore it for that reason. Similarly, people who view evolution as something that creates distance between themselves and God will undoubtedly either stay ignorant of the facts or, as the case is with the Discovery Institute fools, invent facts of their own.

But it doesn't need to be this way for everyone.

 

[spidergoat]

You are tangled. God can be a taco yesterday, but on Tuesday, thats another story. He can exist backwards while not existing at all. He can be everywhere. Why not give him credit?

Because the laws of logic are absolute. They are self proving. Not even God can break them.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I know enough about [evolution] to know that other scientists who know everything about it, find gaping holes in it.

You keep making this claim that there are "gaping holes" in the theory of evolution.

I'd like you to post at least some evidence for your claim, or else I think you ought to stop making it.