Sigh, common descent with modification can be tested. Just compare the DNA sequences between species. Of course, our genetic material is closest to primates, than let’s say a frog. Also, the fossils tell the story of evolution, (but unfortuantely we will never know the entire story).That is your assumption and demonstrates my point: we both observe natural selection happening amongst ‘kinds’, reconcile this fact with our previous understandings, and draw certain conclusions. Beyond that scientific evidence it is a matter of theory, and theory is not in the realm of empirical science but that of reason and the liberal arts. And no matter how much either of us claim otherwise our theories are not science. There is no experiment to prove the account of Genesis and there is no experiment to prove the conjecture of Origin of Species. We can only guess. Educated guesses, yes, but guesses nonetheless.
The difference between theistic evolution and ‘atheistic evolution’ lies solely in how one views the data. Terms like ‘random’ and ‘meaningless’, when applied to evolution, are typically a result of a metaphysical construct - every bit as much as when ‘providence’ and ‘design’ are. I don’t think that evolution implies a pointless existence, certainly not a pointless universe, less still the pointlessness of humanity.The topic at hand is not the validity of creation but the difference between evolution and theistic evolution. Furthermore, you know as well as I that examples, examples, and more examples would avail us nothing. Haven’t you learnt to avoid those pointless discussions?
**The difference between theistic evolution and ‘atheistic evolution’ lies solely in how one views the data. Terms like ‘random’ and ‘meaningless’, when applied to evolution, are typically a result of a metaphysical construct - every bit as much as when ‘providence’ and ‘design’ are. I don’t think that evolution implies a pointless existence, certainly not a pointless universe, less still the pointlessness of humanity.
But yes, these discussions do get meaningless. It’s rare someone is motivated by a true desire to understand (this goes all sides of the debate) - an atheist will arrive at an atheistic view, a theist at a theistic view. Otherwise it’s just apologetics on behalf of one metaphysical view or another.
Certainly it could be any or all of what you’ve said. But, yes, I believe that it can certainly mean that light is life itself, as well. My personal thoughts would be the DNA code is controlled by certain light frequencies. We certainly will not get into this area of discussion, however you might be interested in reading on studies made concerning quantum effects believed to exist within brain thought processes.Such quantum effects could hypothetically extend to other ordinary cells as well.-mich2
Or it can be interpreted (kind of like what I said before), that referring to Jesus’s life as the “light of men,” could be a metaphor that Jesus is the guider of men through the darkness. Christians often use darkness to signify evil, and so the light (Jesus) is what purges the evil and guides us to salvation. I think that interpretation makes more sense, not that light is life.
No, the Earth was not saturated in water. The earth was very hot. All the water was floating miles above the earth because it was all evaporated. Once the water condensed, gravity did not pull it all in one place. There was no basin where it all settled. While the earth was hot there were many volcanoes that made the earth’s crust uneven. There were already mountains and high land, so the water covered the lower land as it cooled and fell.
The Hadean period is a “hellish period” of "molten lava, with some process of attemptive consolidation of a form of crust, only to be redestroyed back into molten lava…no rocks have ever been found in this era. However, even during this time period,The air is hot, thick, steamy, and full of dust and crud.It most resemble the description of the first Genesis Day.It is not a personal theory. Go read a book on it. Or look up Hadean Era on the internet, or in a book.
I don’t know. It to me just seems to be a contradiction in the attempt to personify god.
The upper response was directed to the question "what is the source of light in the statement "Let there be light"? I cannot accept the author simply wrote such a statement without any thought as to where the light came from.I personally believe the very first verse of the creation very simply meant to speak of God creating the earth along with everything else in the universe....the simpless of all of solutions....unless you can show me otherwise.Your condescending style of writing is uncharitable, quite tiresome, and discouraging to honest discussion.Sigh, common descent with modification can be tested. Just compare the DNA sequences between species. Of course, our genetic material is closest to primates, than let’s say a frog. Also, the fossils tell the story of evolution, (but unfortuantely we will never know the entire story).
Not everything is controlled by the DNASigh, common descent with modification can be tested. Just compare the DNA sequences between species. Of course, our genetic material is closest to primates, than let’s say a frog. Also, the fossils tell the story of evolution, (but unfortuantely we will never know the entire story).
I coudn’t agree with you more…thank you for your reply!Deus Vult
One gets the impression from certain religious believers that they fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so they can fill them with God.
Certainly this is true of some believers, but just as certainly it is not true of others. If evolution is true, I welcome it as a revelation of the mind of God at work. I am not the least bit threatened by it, though I know it has been used as a weapon by atheists against the existence of God. Evolution does nothing in a rational way to support the atheist position. They would be shallow thinkers who think it does. If anything, evolution suggests a wonderfully designed creation not the least likely to be the result of blind chance. Even the creation of the universe is a signpost to the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God.
There is little difference between theistic evolution and evolution. Both are some of the many stepping stones to the continuing irrelevance of the Gospel in the West and the rapid growth of secular humanism. Theistic evolution is the prostitution of the faithful to a completely different world view that is incompatible with our faith. Is it any surprise that mainstream Protestants have almost wholeheartedly accepted this idea? The symptoms of this gradual change in our values are the Church’s greatest enemies at present and evolution, no matter what some may say, is contributing to that problem.The difference between theistic evolution and ‘atheistic evolution’ lies solely in how one views the data. Terms like ‘random’ and ‘meaningless’, when applied to evolution, are typically a result of a metaphysical construct - every bit as much as when ‘providence’ and ‘design’ are. I don’t think that evolution implies a pointless existence, certainly not a pointless universe, less still the pointlessness of humanity.
But yes, these discussions do get meaningless. It’s rare someone is motivated by a true desire to understand (this goes all sides of the debate) - an atheist will arrive at an atheistic view, a theist at a theistic view. Otherwise it’s just apologetics on behalf of one metaphysical view or another.
Evolution is the atheist’s position; so how does it not support itself?Evolution does nothing in a rational way to support the atheist position.
There is no difference between theistic evolution and ‘normal/atheistic’ evolution other than how the facts are viewed. You can no more prove divine guidance than you can prove random, meaningless evolution. Sadly, the latter HAS become tied to evolution itself. That is not a natural result of the theory, any more than the Big Bang is something atheists cannot accept. (Or at least I used to think that - I keep running into atheists hostile to the big bang lately.)There is little difference between theistic evolution and evolution. Both are some of the many stepping stones to the continuing irrelevance of the Gospel in the West and the rapid growth of secular humanism. Theistic evolution is the prostitution of the faithful to a completely different world view that is incompatible with our faith.
Is it any surprise that mainstream Protestants have almost wholeheartedly accepted this idea? The symptoms of this gradual change in our values are the Church’s greatest enemies at present and evolution, no matter what some may say, is contributing to that problem.
Honestly, I see more protestants arguing literal Genesis than I do Catholics, but that’s just me. But I maintain that evolution is being manipulated by people to affect those (very real) changes.Evolution is the atheist’s position; so how does it not support itself?
Evolution is the atheist’s position in the same way that cancer is something atheists point at as proof there is no loving God. The Catholic response should not be to deny that cancer exists, but object to the erroneous twist of logic in the atheist’s argument.
Mark my words: Atheists are far more disturbed at theistic evolution, even the basic philosophy behind ID (if not the science), than they are at creationist claims.
Interesting, I think you read PZ’s blog and, of course, he is an atheist. Could you show me an example for his blog that he is disturbed by intelligent design threatening his world view. All I see is his contempt for it.Honestly, I see more protestants arguing literal Genesis than I do Catholics, but that’s just me. But I maintain that evolution is being manipulated by people to affect those (very real) changes.
Evolution is the atheist’s position in the same way that cancer is something atheists point at as proof there is no loving God. The Catholic response should not be to deny that cancer exists, but object to the erroneous twist of logic in the atheist’s argument.
Mark my words: Atheists are far more disturbed at theistic evolution, even the basic philosophy behind ID (if not the science), than they are at creationist claims.
I think, for many people, the problem is not with science or evolution, but with people who misuse science to prop up an atheistic world view. Anyone with a high school education knows that science is NOT about proving or disproving God. It deals simply with the natural world, and understanding the laws that govern the natrual world. To extrapolate from evolution, gravity, or any other scientific theory, that God does (or does not) exist, is to betray a fundamental lack of understanding of what science is and what it is not.So is gravity.What part of gravity (or any other scientific theory) is not accounted for in naturalistic ways? Is the problem here with evolution or all science?
Peace
Tim
I’m aware of the PZ Myers/Ken Miller controversy. I think that entire exchange illuminates what’s ‘really’ going on with the ID v evolution debate - Ken Miller has been an eager combatant against the ID movement as a whole, yet the fact that he can see God within the universe’s design in any sense of the word stirred PZ Myers to anger. And not just anger, but pulling out the dreaded C-word - which, again, goes to show just how that word is really used at times: Deceptively.Interesting, I think you read PZ’s blog and, of course, he is an atheist. Could you show me an example for his blog that he is disturbed by intelligent design threatening his world view. All I see is his contempt for it.
He also called Ken Miller a creationist.
That is rediculous. I live in Ohio, where ID proponents tried to make ID mandatory in the high school biology cirriculum. Ken Miller came to Columbus to debate on the side of teaching only the evolutionary theory, and argued that ID was not science and should not be taught in science classes.He also called Ken Miller a creationist.
Interesting perspective…I’m aware of the PZ Myers/Ken Miller controversy. I think that entire exchange illuminates what’s ‘really’ going on with the ID v evolution debate - Ken Miller has been an eager combatant against the ID movement as a whole, yet the fact that he can see God within the universe’s design in any sense of the word stirred PZ Myers to anger. And not just anger, but pulling out the dreaded C-word - which, again, goes to show just how that word is really used at times: Deceptively.
ID is a complex movement. I remain unconvinced of their ability to ‘prove’ design, personally. Other claims their members make vary in reasonableness. But I think they are entirely capable of making ‘intention/purpose’ as reasonable an interpretation of biological life as ‘randomness/chance’. I can’t prove that this is a prime motivation behind the hostility towards ID - it’s very difficult to prove what someone is thinking or motivated by. But I think PZ Myers and Dawkins have both provided hints as to what irritates them about the basic ID/TE concept.
Again, I don’t doubt it. ID, at the moment, is a term more associated with the actions of specific people than a general philosophy - it’s not a new concept, but it’s a fairly new ‘movement’. There are obviously people who have signed on at the Discovery Institute who are disreputable - then again, there are people who believe in evolutionary theory that cringe whenever Dawkins speaks.I do not know exactly what you mean by ID. But to me, I do not see “Intelligent design” as an intellectually respectable position. Not because the concept of teleology itself is absurd, as it has nothing to do with that, but because of that the actions of intelligent design proponents. To me most of them have a political or religious agenda.
‘Darwinism’, I find, is a messy term. I don’t think it’s necessary to deny common descent to argue in favor of design. It’s usually little things - describing mutation(s) as random, pointless, etc. The specifics of evolution still have issues (I have to read up on punctuated equilibrium sometime), but mostly it all comes down to interpreting raw data both ‘sides’ would accept as factual. Ken Miller would probably be classified as a teleological evolutionist at this point, though he’d have no place in the ID camp as of yet.Denying Darwinism and evolution are similar, but they are different things. It is possible for one to accept evolution by deny Darwinian. An example of this is Michael Denton, who is currently a teleological evolutionist now.
Evolution, as it is taught, whilst not claiming that there is no God, certainly minimalises His role in our story, because for them, our becoming men happened with no supernatural help whatsoever.I think, for many people, the problem is not with science or evolution, but with people who misuse science to prop up an atheistic world view. Anyone with a high school education knows that science is NOT about proving or disproving God. It deals simply with the natural world, and understanding the laws that govern the natrual world. To extrapolate from evolution, gravity, or any other scientific theory, that God does (or does not) exist, is to betray a fundamental lack of understanding of what science is and what it is not.
The classic response to this is that Newton lived before anyone knew about Darwinism.Intelligent Design has an eminent history among scientists. Even Isaac Newton signed on to it:
Isaac Newton Optics, Laws of Motion, Gravitation
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
How much more so should this be true of biological evolution?
