Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is an interventionist deity in general (i.e. without specifically also positing a specific religion to be true or that religion's god to exist) any more in conflict with evolution than with gravitation, plate tectonics, or fluid dynamics?
Isn't that question better posed to the person who wrote the OP's blog post? S/he is the one claiming a conflict.
I agree, which is why I consider that theistic evolution is not really credible. The efforts to try to prove the fingerprints of God with complexity or DNA codes don't convince me, because of this annoying (for theists0 'There is probably some perfectly natural scientific explanation - but we don't know what it is, yet' position. Annoying for theists, as I say, but, given the amount that science has shown that was previously considered inexplicable without a god having done it (instinct, for instance) it is a position thathave earned itself come credit.
Thus, I agree with you that some convincing evidence of the handiwork of God ought to have been detectable, though it is hard to think just what.
My point was more to explain the argument theist evolutionists use to keep afloat the idea that a god could still be involved in evolution, rather than to justify it as credible.
That does sound like an emotional (which is to say faith -based) position rather than an evidence -based one. That said, I don't have a beef with it unless some effort is made to argue that there is sound evidence to support theistic evolution.
My only point in my response is there is no such thing as theistic evolution, which is why I am allowed to speculate. What I mean by that is that while many denominations are not in conflict with evolution, I don't know any denomination who attempts to define how evolution works in any spiritual manner. Typically most denominations will assert something akin to, "we don't disagree with the findings of evolution," and leave it at that. I don't know of any denomination that takes it a step further and says, "we don't disagree with the findings of evolution and we know how God does it."
To me, reading the article it seems the new atheist strategy is instead of seeing Faith on terms of the Fundamentalist, which is very few, there is an effort--although weak at this moment--to attempt to question the concept of Faith of most Christians who are not Fundamentalist. The problem with that is that before you can question you must first understand. This particular author doesn't seem to understand so instead creates a red herring fallacy.
There certainly is such a thing as 'Theistic evolution'. I know that the former Archbishop of Canterbury expressed the view that evolution appeared to be true, but God had a hand in it. I have also seen several posts from theists who rejected the claims of creationism and accepted that evolution appeared to be true.
It is not a church or religious doctrine, but it is an inevitable position for those who feel they have to accept persuasive evidence but wish to factor in their god -faith as well.
There certainly is such a thing as 'Theistic evolution'. I know that the former Archbishop of Canterbury expressed the view that evolution appeared to be true, but God had a hand in it. I have also seen several posts from theists who rejected the claims of creationism and accepted that evolution appeared to be true.
It is not a church or religious doctrine, but it is an inevitable position for those who feel they have to accept persuasive evidence but wish to factor in their god -faith as well.
I'm not disagreeing with you or what the former Archbishop of Canterbury indicated. However, from what you have written it doesn't seem to me the Archbishop is actually forming an outline or theory of how God had a hand in it. It sounds more akin to yes evolution is true but at a certain level it is the mechanism of God and creation, what that level is we don't know.
To be honest, if that is how broadly defined defined this coined concept of Theistic Evolution is, then well I guess I would be tossed into that category as well. For me the level is very, very minimal for others it may be more defined. The problem is that when a term is coined to categorize what all believe in it fails to recognize the possibility that only few believe it in those particular terms and that many don't. Just going by the article itself her conception if this phantom Theistic Evolution is very interventionist and still within the realm of Fundamentalism or Intelligent Design Theories. It doesn't reflect the reality that denominations not in conflict with Evolution are leaving it to the scientist to figure it out and not taking any religious stance or scholarship on it.
She is not making up a god, she is addressing the interventionist, personal, creator-god as generally conceptualized -- and the logical incompatibility of that with evolution.
How is your god different from the one she is talking about?
If you are a True Fundamentalist then she is basically explaining why you must reject / deny evolution, so you should be cool with that. I have yet to meet a fundamentalist who doesn't reject theistic evolution, albeit for rather different primary reasons such as incompatibility with a literal reading of Genesis.
Why cant there be a God who sets things into motion, spends some time doing other things, then when something interesting (such as intelligent life) appears, revisits and gets involved, as it were?
Why cant there be a God who sets things into motion, spends some time doing other things, then when something interesting (such as intelligent life) appears, revisits and gets involved, as it were?
again, i don't see why not if God is all knowing, powerful, etc
Why cant there be a God who sets things into motion, spends some time doing other things, then when something interesting (such as intelligent life) appears, revisits and gets involved, as it were?
How do Christians who believe in Original Sin reconcile their beliefs with evolution?
Well, I did a search to see where current Catholic Scholarship is at the moment. Now I'm linking to this EWTN where it is addressed. It's not going to provide the answers your are looking for but I post it to show how the question is being approached. Again, the arguments are subtle and are up for debate within the Catholic Church. I have my opinions of Original Sin, which from this article is probably consistent with current scholarship. Now, the idea to understand is that Baptism is symbolic and the author of this particular argument makes an allusion to that but doesn't hash it out I suspect that is because the expectation is for Catholics to read this.
Again, the purpose is to show you how theology is approached in general but in particular to this question. Again, I have my own understanding which is probably consistent with current Catholic Scholarship based on this article and how the discussion is being approached.
I'm not disagreeing with you or what the former Archbishop of Canterbury indicated. However, from what you have written it doesn't seem to me the Archbishop is actually forming an outline or theory of how God had a hand in it. It sounds more akin to yes evolution is true but at a certain level it is the mechanism of God and creation, what that level is we don't know.
To be honest, if that is how broadly defined defined this coined concept of Theistic Evolution is, then well I guess I would be tossed into that category as well. For me the level is very, very minimal for others it may be more defined. The problem is that when a term is coined to categorize what all believe in it fails to recognize the possibility that only few believe it in those particular terms and that many don't. Just going by the article itself her conception if this phantom Theistic Evolution is very interventionist and still within the realm of Fundamentalism or Intelligent Design Theories. It doesn't reflect the reality that denominations not in conflict with Evolution are leaving it to the scientist to figure it out and not taking any religious stance or scholarship on it.
Yes, I agree. It is a pretty vague concept. ID/IC potentially explains how God had a hand it it, but that potential is not realized. Irreducible Complexity is used rather to prove that evolution is not possible rather than it is only possible if God helps it along. Those theists who argue that complexity means that God had to have designed and brought it about seem to be suggesting theistic evolution as distinct from genesis -literal creationist ID.
Of course, non- theist evolutionists argue that complexity is quite possible naturally, but as we can't explain and prove how DNA evolved, we just have to differ, there.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-06-2014 at 05:02 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
