Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A question for my theistic evolutionist friends

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Nor do the better Christian theologians. But if you define and delimit Christians by simplistic belief in scriptural inerrancy vs science, then you are merely engaging in religious polemics.
    Interestingly several of the founders of the concept of biblical inerrancy were also Theistic Evolutionists (some folks don't like that name and prefer Evolutionary Creationists). For instance, both Benjamin Warfield and Archibald Hodge[1] (the former is some times referred to as the great apologist of biblical inerrancy or biblical inerrantist par excellence) were TEs. More recently you can look to J.I. Packer[2] and IIRC Billy Graham (a biblical inerrantist -- he is a TE).
















    1. Son of Charles Hodge, the conservative Presbyterian theologian, who taught at Old Princeton Seminary in the 19th century, and who is considered ultra-orthodox. Interestingly, while the senior Hodge famously wrote in What is Darwinism? that evolution by chance is atheism (p.156), he did in fact allow for evolution, "If God made them it makes no difference so far as the question of design is concerned how he made them; whether at once or by a process of evolution." (p.95). IOW, he accepted Theistic Evolution.

    2. I've seen some list Packer as an Old Earth Creationist but he wrote an endorsement for the pro-TE anti-Intelligent Design book called Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? in 2008. More recently he "heartily commend[ed]" in the forward another theistic evolutionary work, Melvin Tinker's Reclaiming Genesis. And when he was shown the quote from Billy Graham where he expressed lukewarm support for evolution of man Packer's response was "Most excellent! My sentiments exactly. Well said!"

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by grmorton View Post
      No one likes my views.
      Except for the Catholic Church.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Vocabulary such as 'random chance mutation,' is more the layman's problematic view of how things work in natural circumstances and events, and do not reflect how scientists consider what appeared to be random events in the past and today. What has replaced randomness today is 'Chaos Theory,' which is the underlying pattern in all of nature on the macro pattern. Even the apparent observed 'randomness' in Quantum levels of Physics may not be truly random. The bottom line is Natural Laws are the fundamental cause of all events, and all events in nature can only occur within the constraints of Natural Laws. This makes Nature to some degree deterministic within the variability of Chaos Theory. Given this view the evolution of life and humanity or other forms of life or intelligent life on other planets is to certain extent deterministic dependent on natural and environmental factors.

        The nature of our physical existence including humanity is Created by God by natural means reflecting the attributes and images of God.
        Other than your view that some lay language is problematic, it sounds like you are basically in agreement with my endorsement of the interesting work of Jeremy England. I see his contribution as trying to actually flesh out some of these natural laws scientifically rather than merely positing them from a religious, theological, or philosophical perspective.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          It is not religious polemics [a very tired and over used word]. It is actually what is taught in most traditional churches as Doctrine and Dogma, and believed by most Christians.
          I think the term 'religious polemicist' fits you perfectly. It may well be the case that most Christians believe in this manner, perhaps especially in the US and in the Southern US, where you live, but this is a theology website so I prefer to discuss good theology rather than petty apologetic interests of religious polemicists. Your tired old point that the Baha'i scriptures are preferable to the ancient Jewish and Christian scriptures, dogma, and doctrine, which were originally formulated in pre-modern times, understood only from a literalist and prepositional view of revelation, does not engage good theology.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            A careful reading of this article reflects my view that the apparent observed randomness in nature has no determining effects in the outcome of events in nature. The article is good, but not anything totally new.

            Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life



            The chemistry of the primordial soup, random mutations, geography, catastrophic events and countless other factors have contributed to the fine details of Earth’s diverse flora and fauna. But according to England’s theory, the underlying principle driving the whole process is dissipation-driven adaptation of matter.

            © Copyright Original Source



            The 'whole process is dissipation driven adaptation of matter' is determined and driven by Natural Laws, and the apparent observed randomness has no causal effects.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-30-2015, 08:41 AM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Interestingly several of the founders of the concept of biblical inerrancy were also Theistic Evolutionists (some folks don't like that name and prefer Evolutionary Creationists). For instance, both Benjamin Warfield and Archibald Hodge[1] (the former is some times referred to as the great apologist of biblical inerrancy or biblical inerrantist par excellence) were TEs. More recently you can look to J.I. Packer[2] and IIRC Billy Graham (a biblical inerrantist -- he is a TE).
















              1. Son of Charles Hodge, the conservative Presbyterian theologian, who taught at Old Princeton Seminary in the 19th century, and who is considered ultra-orthodox. Interestingly, while the senior Hodge famously wrote in What is Darwinism? that evolution by chance is atheism (p.156), he did in fact allow for evolution, "If God made them it makes no difference so far as the question of design is concerned how he made them; whether at once or by a process of evolution." (p.95). IOW, he accepted Theistic Evolution.

              2. I've seen some list Packer as an Old Earth Creationist but he wrote an endorsement for the pro-TE anti-Intelligent Design book called Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? in 2008. More recently he "heartily commend[ed]" in the forward another theistic evolutionary work, Melvin Tinker's Reclaiming Genesis. And when he was shown the quote from Billy Graham where he expressed lukewarm support for evolution of man Packer's response was "Most excellent! My sentiments exactly. Well said!"
              There are indeed ways of reading scriptures in such a way that they are not seen as contrary to science, but I still like to focus on the original authors' most likely intent.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                A careful reading of this article reflects my view that the apparent observed randomness in nature has no causative effects in the outcome of events in nature. The article is good, but not anything totally new.
                The article is written for lay people, and very little in science or other disciplines is ever totally new. Do you have anything of interest to say about Jeremy England's scientific contributions?
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  There are indeed ways of reading scriptures in such a way that they are not seen as contrary to science, but I still like to focus on the original authors' most likely intent.
                  The dominant belief of the original authors, and the church father's was a very literal understanding of scripture. There is some variation of time issues, and how long a 'day' is in Creation.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by JimL
                    Edited by a Moderator
                    So you're a theistic evolutionist now?
                    Last edited by Zymologist; 07-30-2015, 02:31 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by JimL
                      Edited by a Moderator
                      If you are not a theistic evolutionist I am going to request that this post be removed.
                      Last edited by Zymologist; 07-30-2015, 02:31 PM.


                      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        The dominant belief of the original authors, and the church father's was a very literal understanding of scripture. There is some variation of time issues, and how long a 'day' is in Creation.
                        Actually, some church fathers were very interested in symbolic interpretations of the Jewish and Christian scriptures and early rabbinic exegesis was quite comfortable with a variety of midrashic methods that did not insist upon a single, literal interpretation and was frequently comfortable with quite contrasting interpretations. But rabbinic and patristic exegesis usually tells us very little about the original authors' intended meaning. On the other hand, many, pehaps most, modern exegetical scholars, at least those I consider to be of the highest caliber, would very much disagree with your characterization of the original authors' literalist intent. Poetry, prophesy, and poetic narratives yield profound plasticity of text and interpretation, which does indeed help us understand why early rabbinic exegesis moved quickly into midrashic directions. Jesus and Paul show themselves to be quite comfortable in this world of interpretation.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                          If you are not a theistic evolutionist I am going to request that this post be removed.
                          *Looks at name*

                          *sees red*

                          *shakes head*

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                            Most TEs don't believe in miracles?
                            Not in my experience, they don't.

                            Ask them if they believe in talking snakes, or floating ax heads, or talking donkeys, all of which would have to be miraculous. Ask if those events actually happened.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              You must be acquainted with an entirely different group of TEs than I'm familiar with. Thinking long and hard I can not think of a single TE who doesn't believe in miracles. For instance, I'm not aware of any who doesn't think that Christ was resurrected which I hope you would agree definitely counts as a miracle.
                              I spent loads of time on the ASA list. The only miracle I could get folk to agree to was the resurrection. They didn't believe in a talking snake, do you? They didn't believe in a floating ax head, do you? They didn't believe in Lot's wife turned to stone, do you?

                              To me, once one admits of one miracle, the resurrection, then all bets are off, and the entire Genesis 1 story COULD have happened just as the YEC's understand it, yes, it is last-Tuesdayism, but so what? How does that get us to the truth or fallsity of that belief? If it is true, then yes, star collisions are a mirage, but merely stating that it is last Tuesdayism doesn't generate a truth value.

                              So, did Jesus feed the 5000 from a few loaves and fish? Did surgery create Eve? (that too would have to be a miracle).

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Dave View Post
                                If no one objects, I'd like to piggy-back on this thread and ask another question for theistic evolutionists. If there is a God that created us by way of evolution / natural selection then it seems to me that this has resulted in certain uncivilized instincts/traits being passed down to us due to the nature of the survival process. To name a couple: male aggressiveness, selfishness, lust, overactive sex drives, rage, etc. I wonder if the blame for these instincts could be placed on the process of evolution. For example, males having to compete to become the alpha male and thereby winning the most chances of passing on their genes or the selfish hording of resources to strengthen offspring, etc. If this is the case then how does this affect your belief that there is a God who wants us to love everyone and be kind to everyone? Doesn't natural selection seem like a backwards way of achieving this goal? We could also take this one step further and ask, who would be to blame for these inherited behaviors?
                                I don't think God is what so many think he is. Isaiah45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.'

                                If God creates evil (and the hebrew word has the connotation of moral evil), then ultimately He is what He is and our belief in a kindly grandfather in the sky is meaningless.

                                God made us what we are through evolution.

                                Your argument seems to be the common one that our kindly grandfather God wouldn't use such a horrid process as evolution. Problem is, God claims to bring the evil, if you believe Isaiah was speaking God's word.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X