Books on theistic evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kronk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Materialist atheism has been the clear preference here. Adding the word God means just adding a word that can be discarded.
 
edwest211 said:
Materialist atheism has been the clear preference here. Adding the word God means just adding a word that can be discarded.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that some of your fellow Catholics are going to drop God from what they describe as theistic evolution?

There is simply evolution. If you want to draw up the lines for an argument then you can call someone a supporter of ‘theistic’ evolution if you like, purely in order to suggest that it’s just one small step from a belief in atheistic evolution. Which is complete and utter nonsense. And you have been called out on this more times than I could have possibly counted.

No-one has ever promoted a godless version of evolution in this forum. And I mean nobody. So cut out the claim of ‘clear preference’ if you will. It’s not true in this thread or any other. The only clear preference being exhibited in almost all your posts is an aversion to anything at all to do with evolution itself. Because you are a creationist. Plain and simply.

You posted nowhere else but that nonsensically long winded thread some time back. Hardly anyone else posted there either. Now it’s nice to see your comments getting some fresh air rather than languishing in that dusty old thresd. So lots of others can see them.
 
edwest211 said:
Materialist atheism has been the clear preference here.
Click to expand...
False.

Sorry for the short answer,. on second I will do better. There have been no posts on this thread espousing materialistic atheism. So to say it has been the clear preference here is simply false.
 
Last edited:
Creationists believe God is powerful enough to create the universe as we know it in seven days. Intelligent designers believe God is powerful enough to create the universe over time. Theistic evolutionists believe God is powerful enough to create the universe in an eternal instant.
 
I don’t think it’s a matter of how powerful people believe God is so much as it is what timing people believe God decided to make the universe in.
 
Yes, but for me, the dividing factor was how powerful God is. First of all, I am completely convinced that God is the creator of all things, that He is the first cause. The world around us is convincing enough to say Genesis is not a literal account of how He created the universe, indeed the book if Genesis itself is convincing enough. I will give creationists credit though, they do not limits the power of God. I can’t say the same for intelligent design advocates (of which I was at one time). They can only envision a creator who has to continually tinker with His creation over time to get it right. But looking at evolution from eternity, God willed it one way, and that is what appeared.
 

The Time Question​

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”
  • Catholic Answers
 
I hesitate to speak for Ed, but in my conversations with him, he seems to object to the lack of any mention of God in scientific literature. Without that acknowledgment, science is atheistic and violates what he claims is the church’s view on the matter. Why this doesn’t apply to all scientific theories is something he doesn’t elaborate on.
 
Interesting take. What I’m just thinking is that most people who believe in God believe He has infinite power, knowledge, and wisdom, and hence can create it in whatever matter of time He wants. Of course, based on your description of intelligent design advocates, it sounds like a number of them believe God can mess up His creation the first time and try to fix it, which I wouldn’t really agree with, as it gives a sense of limited power. For me, I don’t really pay much attention to how long it took to create the universe, I just know God created it, and that the universe is of a finite age. So I guess there’s a bit of a divide here as to how much power God has, but not usually between creationists and evolutionists that believe in God. I guess it depends on who you ask.
 
Last edited:
niceatheist said:
I hesitate to speak for Ed, but in my conversations with him, he seems to object to the lack of any mention of God in scientific literature. Without that acknowledgment, science is atheistic and violates what he claims is the church’s view on the matter. Why this doesn’t apply to all scientific theories is something he doesn’t elaborate on.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I have asked him on two or three or ocassions recently to give me any theory which we cannot preface with ‘theistic’. There are all theistic to all Christians. No exceptions. He only picks on evolution because he is a creationist.
 
edwest211 said:

The Time Question​

“Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”
  • Catholic Answers
Click to expand...
So how old do you think it is, Ed?
 
Can you please provide a reference to the source of that quote? Thanks.
 
edwest211 said:
Materialist atheism has been the clear preference here. Adding the word God means just adding a word that can be discarded.
Click to expand...
You do realize the actual science of evolution is neither materialist nor atheist. There are just some materialist and atheist thinkers who take the science and fit it to their own worldview.

So I’m not taking materialist or atheist evolutionary science and adding God to it. I’m understanding science in light of being the physical study of God’s creation.
 
Let me be clear: God need not be mentioned in scientific literature. I rely on the Church to combine science and Divine revelation to give me, and others, the full, complete answer. Example: The design in nature is actual design as opposed to ‘it only looks designed.’
 
In fairness, I only prefix one scientific theory with the word theistic. And that is because I will readily admit there are many evolutionary advocates who do see it as a means to disprove/discredit theism. Some of them are at times a dogmatic as the most fundamentalist Protestants.

Also, while evolution or the big bang can be studied without considering theology, if we want a complete picture of creation, that is not the case. So when saying theistic evolution, one is intentionally going past the boundaries of science into philosophy and theology to give a complete picture.
 
The subject of human origins and creation are very important ideas. Ideas some want to manipulate. There are some aspects of science that can be readily observed but events involving life spanning long periods of time begins to introduce error. An imperfect example: a bullet traveling a short distance relative to its maximum effective range will miss if the target is not sighted correctly, and if allowance for wind speed is not included and if minimum vibration is not planned for when the trigger is pulled. Over millions of years, a tiny 0.0001% error changes to a 10% or greater error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top