Does this idea have a label? Creationists, Evolutionary Theists...?

[PeterK]

If one believes…
There is an eternally existing God.
With unique initiative this God creates another existence separate from Himself but not independent of His sustenance.
Physical matter - by God’s design and guidance - progresses from this beginning of existence, possibly with a big bang, and results in the plurality of matter we observe today.
Then within this inorganic existence - with another unique initiative of God - a very simple life form comes into existence and eventually - by God’s design and guidance - results, through an evolutionary process perhaps, into the plurality of life we see today.
Then, and finally, within this organic existence - with another unique initiative of God - a conscience and intellect is breathed into one male and female pair of life forms and the first humans come into existence and eventually - by God’s design and guidance - result in the humanity we observe today.
Do this model have a name?

Thanks,
Peter K

 

[James_S_Saint]

Emmm…

“Another Misunderstanding of Scriptures”, maybe??

That is what I would have to call it anyway, but is closer than many.

 

[jeremy_k]

It is a form of Deistic Evolution, which ties into Theology of Freedom.

 

[reggieM]

That’s like guided evolution, or theistic evolution. God created the laws and then they proceeded to create the world and life and the development of nature.

 

[PeterK]

Reggie, Jeremy James,
Thanks for the response.

Help me a bit with the term ‘evolution.’ I understand it to have originally applied to biology, but does it now apply to inorganic matter also. Did the cosmos ‘evolve?’ As far as the inorganic matter portion it’s just cause and effect - right?

Thanks,
Peter K

 

[edwest2]

Reggie, Jeremy James,
Thanks for the response.

Help me a bit with the term ‘evolution.’ I understand it to have originally applied to biology, but does it now apply to inorganic matter also. Did the cosmos ‘evolve?’ As far as the inorganic matter portion it’s just cause and effect - right?

Thanks,
Peter K

The thinking is this: life is composed of chemicals. Theoretically, there may be a way to ‘naturally’ combine inorganic chemicals to produce life. And it’s often made to sound simple or even spoken of as if people actually know it’s possible. They do not. Whenever a scientist talks about life on other worlds and the building blocks of life (amino acids), he is presenting a fantasy. There is no testable experiment that creates life in the lab.

It may be possible in the future, by using nanotechnology, to assemble something that may have the characteristics of a living thing, but I’m doubtful. Supposedly, it should be doable using purely natural forces.

Peace,
Ed

 

[wanstronian]

The thinking is this: life is composed of chemicals. Theoretically, there may be a way to ‘naturally’ combine inorganic chemicals to produce life. And it’s often made to sound simple or even spoken of as if people actually know it’s possible. They do not. Whenever a scientist talks about life on other worlds and the building blocks of life (amino acids), he is presenting a fantasy. There is no testable experiment that creates life in the lab.

It may be possible in the future, by using nanotechnology, to assemble something that may have the characteristics of a living thing, but I’m doubtful. Supposedly, it should be doable using purely natural forces.

Peace,
Ed

Peter,

You have to bear in mind that Ed is irretrievably coloured by his own arbitrary worldview of what is and isn’t possible, and by his ignorance regarding the facts and theory of evolution.

Ed claims that evolution is “made to sound simple.” This is Ed’s incredulity showing - he is unable to believe that an ultimately simply process could possibly produce a complex result - regardless of the analogous evidence to the contrary that can easily be demonstrated - think snowflakes, Mandelbrot sets and so on. As to whether “people actually know it’s possible” - well, it’s been shown to be true, beyond reasonable doubt. The exact mechanism of the most popular theory of process - natural selection - is unconfirmed, but evolution does happen. Anybody who trots out the, “dogs beget dogs” line is either stupid, ignorant, disingenuous, or all three.

Ed’s statement that “There is no testable experiment that creates life in the lab” is undeniably true but, predictably from a theist, is an incomplete and misleading statement. Amino acids - the fundamental building blocks of life - have been created from inorganic chemicals, in the lab. So granted, It’s not a complete evidential process from inorganic chemicals to recognisable life, but it’s something, which is more than any of the alternative hypotheses can claim.

You asked about evolution, but Ed has answered a different question, that of abiogenesis. This sort of conflation is common amongst people who pretend to, but ultimately don’t, understand what they’re talking about.

 

[buffalo]

IDvolution. God created the super powerful and adaptable language of DNA and set it in some basic body types that allow these body types to adapt to their environment but still genetically limited to preserve and continue that body type.

 

[jackfrost10]

Reggie, Jeremy James,
Thanks for the response.

Help me a bit with the term ‘evolution.’ I understand it to have originally applied to biology, but does it now apply to inorganic matter also. Did the cosmos ‘evolve?’ As far as the inorganic matter portion it’s just cause and effect - right?

Thanks,
Peter K

You were correct. Evolution as talked about by REAL scientists refers to biological evolution.