Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
evolution Show phonetics noun [U]
the way in which living things change and develop over millions of years, or a gradual process of change and development:
Darwin's theory of evolution
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
I assume there was a point in those quotations. I will wait for you to let us in on it. :)
PS: Nothing in those quotes says that evolution requires atheism. That's why most people who accept evolution are theists.
What you are talking about there is conclusions that some individuals have drawn. Nothing to do with whether or not evolution is per se inherently atheist. "Leaving nothing for God to do" could equally well apply to atomic theory. At one time people blamed (or thanked) God for the precise placement of every lightning strike. Presumably meteorology and electrical theory are atheistic too, because they replaced the need for a deity's direct action in that instance.
I note that you've failed to address any of the other points I've made or questions that I've asked you.
Yes, and? I hope you understand that science is under no obligation to not contradict your religion. If your religion makes falsifiable claims about reality and science demonstrates that they are wrong, that's a clear sign that a literal reading of the passages in question doesn't take you anywhere.
It allows for no alternative explanations.
Science allows for scientific explanations i.e. naturalistic answers. That's not because a supernaturalistic answer is necessarily false but because supernaturalistic explanations cannot be empirically tested. If they could, they would be called natural in the first place.
Besides, trying to explain an observed phenomenon with a supernaturalistic answer is like replacing a riddle with an even greater enigma.
Evolution is a theory that is necessarily IN ITS IMPLICATIONS, atheistic.
No, it's not. Just because it's incompatible with a literal reading of your creation story doesn't make it atheistic. For instance, the ToE is not concerned with the way how the first imperfect self-replicators arose because it only addresses the dynamics of a system and not its origin.
So while your god may have created the first life form I wouldn't be too comfortable with this gap because science doesn't stand still and maybe in a not too distant future we may discover possible pathways of how life could have arisen in a natural fashion.
Now while such a discovery doesn't prove that your god must not have created life it demonstrates that he need not have done so.
However, this is the nature of all of science and that not only since Laplace, who IIRC was the first one who expressed that idea explicitly.
As a side note, the ToE is not the only scientific theory that contradicts your creation story. Long before Darwin, early geologists (who btw. were all creationists) came to the conclusion that their observations didn't match a recent global flood, no matter how much they wished this wasn't the case. So, they were biased, but their bias went into the other direction which makes their conclusions even more compelling.
Are you one of those "theists" who accept evolution?
If so, then describe this God.
Thanks.
Or at the Oklo natural reactor ;-)
Genesis definitely comes first in my bible, too.
Without it, the rest doesn't make much sense, does it? The sacrifice & resurrection are nonsense without the fall of a single, unique forebear.
Our theological differences are minimal when confronted with the denial of God.
"Are you one of those "theists" who accept evolution? "
No. I don't have to be either. You are evading the issue. Most people who accept evolution are also theists (in the USA they are mostly Christians). There is nothing in evolutionary theory that makes it atheistic. Or theistic. Theology isn't science. Science isn't theology. Science is not capable of examining the question of whether or not there is a God. That's a matter of faith. You want to make it a matter of science. That's your problem.
It's not personal. I was busy dealing with Carolina and Orthodox Presby. That's enough for my tiny brain to deal with at any one time. :>)
Are you a "theist" who also believes in evolution?
If so, would you describe that particular God for me?
See my post #1754
Thank you for your comments.
Are you a "theist" who also believes in evolution?
If so, would you describe that particular God?
Indeed. :-)
See my #1765 please.
I would appreciate your response.
Already responded.
I just read it. It appears well written.
Are you one of the "theists" who is also an evolutionist?
If so, would you describe that God for me?
Where?
I missed it.
1768.
Sorry. What I might believe or might not believe has no impact on science or the mountains of evidence supporting the theory of evolution.
Sorry I missed your post.
It didn't get into describing that God that you envision being possible under an evolutionary scheme.
No one who might be a "theist" believing in evolutionary theory seems willing to discuss this/these God(s).
Why should I not assume that is because "theism" and "evolution" are incompatible? After all, my own analysis (and Carl Sagan's) indicates that it they are not possible finally to reconcile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.