Where Theistic Evolution Leads

BeliefNet ^ | May 19, 2009 | Where Theistic Evolution Leads

[GodGunsGuts]

Some readers thought I was unfair in a previous entry explaining the difference between my perspective on evolution and that of my fellow Beliefnet blogger Dr. Francis Collins over at Science and the Sacred. Am I really not being fair? Well, let's test that hypothesis by picking out one idea from Dr. Collins's book and from his website BioLogos. It's his treatment of the idea that somehow a moral law in every heart points us to the existence of God.

Because BioLogos -- or theistic evolution, however we may designate the general approach -- surrenders so easily to naturalism, it must be willing to accommodate Darwinism's explanation of where that moral law comes from...

[GodGunsGuts]

Tell me PSS, would you send your son to Hillsdale if its science program was based on biblical creation?

[freedumb2003]

I’m trying! I really am!

[Religion Moderator]

I realize that. Personal jabs are typical of crevo debates but are not tolerable on the Religion Forum.

[freedumb2003]

Yes — just for clarity when someone says something that is incorrect I generally will point that out. I apologize to one and all if that is taken as anything other than fact-based.

But our best bet, IMHO, is to keep these threads off of Religion. I prefer theological discussions and debates here.

[Gordon Greene]

“This properly belongs in Chat.

Here in Religion, I prefer prayer threads and the really cool Verse Of The Day. And theological discussions and debates.”

Again, showing the arrogance of the evilutionist crowd... it’s always about what they want. It’s not your website. I think we should start calling you’se guys egolutionists.

“If you ask me, discussions about science really belong elsewhere. This isn’t about religion, it is about philosophy.”

Nobody asked you. Just thought I’d point that out. I know nobody asked me either... I’m just answering for sheer self perpetuation. See... creationists can have egos too.

GG

[freedumb2003]

See post 101 et. seq.

[CottShop]

[[But our best bet, IMHO, is to keep these threads off of Religion.]]

GGG posts them in the news section- the evos complain, he posts them in the religion section, the evos complain, if he posted them in Chat section, the evos woudl complain- face it- the evos simply don’t liek science that exposes the problems and impossibilites with macroevolution no matter where it’s posted

[freedumb2003]

Post 101, et. seq.

[CottShop]

[[I hate to use the word “miracle,” except as another word for evidence, or sign that leads beyond present science, or even contradicts it.]]

I agree- the word to use is ‘Supernatural’- if somethign simply is not possible naturally, then if it is present, it must have come about supernaturally- Evos try to claim nature is capable of supernatural acts (although they deny it’s supernatural, and wave it away by exclaiming ‘we just don’t know how, haven’t discovered how the thing could have occured yet’, but the reasonable mind will conclude there is enough biological, and chemical evidence to point ot the need for a supernatural intelligent designer- to come to a beyond reasonable doubt conclusion. When enough evidence is presented to show that something had to occure via a supernatural act, it hten becoems unreasonable to keep claiming nature was capable of violating it’s own precepts and principles. There MUST therefore be another explanation- but evos are loathe to ceede that nature is incapable of creation, and that a supernatural intelligent designer caused the acts.

[CottShop]

post 105 bon appatite

[CottShop]

I wans’t making it personal FD- I was stating facts- Evos complain no matter where GGG posts his threads- this is fact- I’ve witnessed it many times here on FR- I’m not ‘reading anyone’s minds’- as they’ve revealed their mindsets for all to see for themselves, and I’m simply stating what they have complained about in the past. there’s no need to becoem obsessed about everyone’;s posts in the religion forum-

[freedumb2003]

>>the evos simply don’t liek science that exposes the problems and impossibilites with macroevolution no matter where it’s posted<<

The fact a group of people, of which you are a member, do not understand something does not mean it doesn’t exist.

And the restrictions here at Religion make it almost impossible to address the nonsense that people who don’t understand the underlying science post.

Have a blessed day. I am done here.

[goodusername]

“Only if someone is so desperate that they want to *prove* evolution occurred.
No, wolves to chihuahuas do not fit the bill. They’re both dogs and interbreed can freely if physical limitations were not an issue. Varieties of animals do not demonstrate evolution, only variation WITHIN species.”

The only reason wolves and chihuahuas are lumped into the same species is because there are so many extant intermediates. It would be too difficult and too arbitrary to try to draw any taxonomic lines. If all we had were wolves and chihuahuas, however, there’s no question they’d be put into different species, and probably different genera.

So I suspect that it’s a question that is impossible to answer - if I give an answer that includes two groups that can interbreed than it’ll be rejected on grounds that it’s “change within species” (even though chihuahuas and wolves actually can’t - but that was rejected on grounds that they would if they could heh). If I give an example of two species that can’t interbreed, then I’ll have to use examples of groups that have been separated for longer periods of time - and that will be rejected on grounds that, well, we didn’t witness it, which is when we use fossils, and I somehow doubt that fossil evidence will go over well. :-)

“Genetically they are not separate species then.”
It’s rather difficult to say what’s a separate species genetically, and it’s rarely used as a basis.
There was a book out a while back called “The Third Chimpanzee”, which argued that, genetically, we should be classified as a chimpanzee subspecies, like dogs are to wolves. (The second chimp being the bonobo).

It’s also REALLY difficult to tell if two groups can interbreed based on genetics. It’s very rare, but sometimes horses and zebras can interbreed (to form “zorses”) - this is despite some horses have 66 chromosomes to the zebras 32. (Are they in the same kind?)

But back to the original request: “a clearly different and unique species that is not identifiable as the original parent organism”.

The reason we can tell that evolution occurs is because it occurs in a way in which parent and child species ARE identifiable. If this wasn’t the case there would be no taxonomic tree or evolutionary tree and we probably would never have noticed evolution.

[CottShop]

[[The fact a group of people, of which you are a member, do not understand something does not mean it doesn’t exist.]]

Lol- We understand it just fine- I’ve yet to see any credible coutnerarguments presented- and your ‘coutnerargument’ is nothign but a handwaving dismissal I’m afraid- What exists exactly? Macroevolution? The scientific evidenc e argues otherwise- Stating ‘Creationists don’t understand “IT” isn’t a valid coutnerargument unless you provide evidence showing your position indeed did violate several key scientific principles- so, IF you have hte evidence, present it-

[[And the restrictions here at Religion make it almost impossible]]

It’s not impossible at all- please do explain how macroevolution could violate several key scientific principles- Explain how it could violate biological laws, chemical, mathematical etc- please enlighten us all with the wisdom from the left since we ‘don’t understand’ “IT”- Broad Generalizations like that aren’t helping your credibility on the issue I’m afraid. I could just as well state that since evos don’t understand “IT”, meaning bigfoot, doesn’t mean “IT” doesn’t exist, but discussing bigfoots existence or non existence wouldn’t even begin to compare to the impossibilities faced by macroevolution, and stating that we creationists ‘dont understand ‘ “IT” is a silly copout meant only to deride those you dissagree with while avoiding havign to dig into the meat of hte issues and explain your position scientifically.

IF you have evidence proving macroevolution violated scientific principles trillions of times i nthe past, and IF you have conclusive evidnece showing neat little liens of common descent, present htem, and we’ll discuss them- otherwise, all you’re doing is engaging in theological apologies for your position

[[And the restrictions here at Religion make it almost impossible to address the nonsense that people who don’t understand the underlying science post.]]

It’s quite simple- present a dispassionate, emotionally uninvested argument for your position withbout injecting personal insults-

[[Have a blessed day. I am done here.]]

Oh well- Just as well, as I don’t really care to argue agaisnt pat broad generalizations anyways- I p[refer arguing actual points of science myself. you have a blessed day as well

[Gordon Greene]

I’ll take that under advisement...

I’d like to apologize to any well-meaning humanist-evolutionists I might have offended. That being said...

Almost every evolutionist in history was or is an ego-driven maniac with a personality disorder that moves them to deny the existence of God and a weird fixation on “saving” mankind “from” creationism, salvation and God.

Is that better?

[valkyry1]

Almost every evolutionist in history was or is an ego-driven maniac with a personality disorder that moves them to deny the existence of God and a weird fixation on “saving” mankind “from” creationism, salvation and God

That pretty much encapsulates the group. 

[goodusername]

“Almost every evolutionist in history was or is an ego-driven maniac with a personality disorder that moves them to deny the existence of God and a weird fixation on “saving” mankind “from” creationism, salvation and God.”

That’s an odd statement - considering that most evolutionists believe in God - and most people that believe in God believe in evolution. :-)

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Tell me PSS, would you send your son to Hillsdale if its science program was based on biblical creation?

I couldn't, because no school of repute ignores science. Name ONE reputable school that eschews teaching of evolution.

But if it did only teach creation and he wanted to study biology or science, then I'd caution him against it, because it chooses to ignore physical facts and hard-core science in the name of blind faith.

The fundamental problem is that the Bible is NOT a science textbook! Trying to jam it into that role is a corruption of the Word of God... It does not contain the depth of details needed for science, and it does not contain an accurate, 100% complete history of even the early times, let alone anything outside stories of relationship between God, man, and fellow man.

[CottShop]

lol noone is ‘cramming anything to fit anything’- It just so happens, science confirms God’s word (When you concider pure science, and not some theological hypothesis about past events that supposedly defied natural laws and supposedly macroevolved everythign from a single cell)

I find it funny hte evos claim science and religion are not exclusive, and yet they turn right around and state science and religion can’t mingle- quite funny indeed- would be nice if those stating such woudl stick to one or the other story- can’targue agaisnt those who’s identities keep changing as often as wind

[Gordon Greene]

"That’s an odd statement - considering that most evolutionists believe in God - and most people that believe in God believe in evolution. :-)"

And I, for one appreciate the smiley face. Just a spoonful of sugar and all… :0)

What's odd to me is that this reply truly appears to beg a response from an ignorant Creation-believing literalist like myself, who is so obviously in the minority. What's even more odd is how the evolutionists (and you know who you are) keep dragging out this tired old thing about how we Creationists are in the minority. Take oh, about 50 to 75 years or so teaching kids that they climbed from the slime and swung down from the trees; shove it down their collective throats in everything from Discovery to Nickelodeon, and you wind up with indoctrination more potent than any crackpot cult would ever be capable of. The State religion of indoctrination into the cult of Darwinism is one of the most insidious evils ever visited upon mankind. Do I think evolutionists are in the majority? Not yet. But thanks to the public education system they will soon have what they want, and moral relativism will be rampant.

"most people that believe in God believe in evolution. :-)"

I disagree... well, partially. Some Evolutionists may believe in God, but I and many others believe in a LITERAL God while the Evolutionists believe in a god of metaphors. A god of allegory is not the supreme maker of the Universe. Allegory is not and cannot be the One true God. You see, I believe in the God of the Bible. Evolutionists discount the words of Genesis as nothing more than fantasy written for a specific people to keep them in check. That’s no different than saying that religion is the opiate of the masses! Good company you’re keeping, there. There are texts supporting Genesis woven throughout scripture, in which the people of God speak as though they actually believe that God literally created everything we see according to the Genesis account. Say what you will about Evolutionists believing in God, but their twisting of the scriptures to fit their personal view of God is not convincing me or any other true believer. Welcome to my world, Evo...