Theistic Evolution?

[emotel]

In fact, many previously inexplicable features of the cell have been understood as evolutionary theory makes clear why they are the way they are.

Indeed so. And we are now beginning to understand what came before “The Cell”. It’s all very exciting.

Emotel.

 

[edwest2]

Interesting. If by that you mean that science “hasn’t yet” explained the complexity of the living cell then I agree. But if you mean that there is something about the cell that science will never explain then I would like to know how you know that and where you see science having to stop in the quest for understanding?

Emotel

A response that transfers faith to science. It is part of the average tool kit of a worldview that predetermines science will know almost all if not all. You misunderstand, the Catholic Church has real knowledge that some claim is beyond the reach of science. However, do not believe those who say science is silent about God since the Pope and Cardinal Schoenborn are both addressing the many scientists who are saying the theory of evolution negates a role for God.

I am a historian specializing in the history of technology, but no knowledge or wisdom or enlightenment entered anyone’s head the moment the calendar changed from the 20th to the 21st Century. To believe otherwise is fantasy. God has revealed real truth to the Catholic Church. That is what I find to be the most valuable thing. Science will always be viewed in alignment with divinely revealed truth.

God bless,
Ed

 

[emotel]

Hi Ed,

A response that transfers faith to science.

Hmm… I can’t see how my response does that? I state a simple and obvious fact and then ask a question?

It is part of the average tool kit of a worldview that predetermines science will know almost all if not all.

Maybe but that’s not a view that I expressed?

You misunderstand, the Catholic Church has real knowledge that some claim is beyond the reach of science.

As a child I had a long Catholic education so I know that the Church believes that it is connected to a supernatural source of knowledge. However, my question related to information about where you see science stopping and the unknowable beginning.

However, do not believe those who say science is silent about God since the Pope and Cardinal Schoenborn are both addressing the many scientists who are saying the theory of evolution negates a role for God.

Science is far from silent about how the natural world works and its quest continues. There seems little doubt that the Theory of Evolution has changed human perceptions of God’s role. Why else would this thread be called “Theistic Evolution”?

I am a historian specializing in the history of technology, but no knowledge or wisdom or enlightenment entered anyone’s head the moment the calendar changed from the 20th to the 21st Century. To believe otherwise is fantasy.

Given your speciality, you surely can’t be suggesting that “wisdom or enlightenment” never entered the heads of Darwin and Wallace in the middle of the 19th century? The concept of evolution by means of natural selection delivers astonishing explanatory power. That means that it qualifies as both wisdom and as elightenment.

God has revealed real truth to the Catholic Church. That is what I find to be the most valuable thing. Science will always be viewed in alignment with divinely revealed truth.

The trouble is that what people say about divinely revealed truth changes as science delivers explanatory power. The works of Galileo and Darwin are the obvious examples. Now we know how genetic information is stored in cells and how it is used. We can see evidence that “The Cell” evolved from an earlier life form.

So my question remains:

“But if you mean that there is something about the cell that science will never explain then I would like to know how you know that and where you see science having to stop in the quest for understanding?”

Emotel

 

[The_Barbarian]

However, do not believe those who say science is silent about God since the Pope and Cardinal Schoenborn are both addressing the many scientists who are saying the theory of evolution negates a role for God.

Tell us a few of those many scientists, with their statements saying that the theory of evolution negates a role for God.

Hint: Dawkins has admitted that the theory of evolution cannot rule out God. But there might be some, somewhere. Tell us their names, and checkable statements where they said it.

 

[bullfrog543]

is my evidence below called theistic evolution with gods creation -

words are strange and the law of attraction as well. words have an attraction clarity. such things as little words or small amount generally are attracted to larger things that are like circlular vesils if you may. consider all life and material goods as vesils and humans as temples of god. the vesels need a form of expression because of isolation. The holy spirit fills the vesels with wind words. these vesels have two size levels that i realize perhaps 3 holy things, big vesels, small vesels, some vesels do not contain an adequate amount of balance keep what it has to fulfill its purpose. things such as rust can biodegrate these vesles at a fast rate. such things as bed bugs help prepare an ariginal balance in humans. words are always in a craving mode in vesels and the meak in humans and or animals. a purpose instink mode if you dare. the instink of creating a vessel for a porticular purpose, strives to be a knowledgable never ending muti purpose devise. Though some things such as athiests and vesels need a required proof to adapt towards their desired purpose thus the acceptence of its long usage would be towards admiration.

There are several levels in vesels such things as freesers are admirable such things as holy things are admirable the cross being the best. such things as mirrors are admirable yet should not be dealt with shade. such things as windows are admirable also shouldnt be in shade. books and paper and pictures are also admirable. all electronics interconnect after awhile and become more of a comfort to vast lazyness. though still all individually called vesels including the computer. each have a multi purpose. know this is the clarity attraction, the more purpose or multi purpose a vesel has the greater law of attraction, thus the greater craving to use such things. We tend to seak safety and sustaining life being beyond this attractions short fall. The spirtual law inforces certain guide lines as such to induce rightiousness, faith, and beliefe. The ultimate goal is to succeed in a videly beliefe and admire the few that can sustain this inner craved attraction that life has presented us with. At times we fall short in the eyes of god and our inner craving leads us to medication or worse alcohol or drugs. This is an inner craving none the less a vurcular balance needs to over magnitude us according to the proper attraction leading us away from ultimate prideness or absolute prideness.

this craved attraction is based on being multi purpose. scientifically it could be seen as evolution and creation. the evolution is creating a device (material good) for a soul purpose. The creation is recomended being all multi pupose vesels at times connected ones such as clocks (clocks because each second minute hour has its purpose)

 

[emotel]

The spirtual law inforces certain guide lines as such to induce rightiousness, faith, and beliefe.

The fact that you believe that is evidence of a kind. However, you present no evidence that your belief is correct.

this craved attraction is based on being multi purpose. scientifically it could be seen as evolution and creation.

I see biological evolution in terms of the scientific theory of the same name. This is very different to what you describe.

the evolution is creating a device (material good) for a soul purpose. The creation is recomended being all multi pupose vesels at times connected ones such as clocks (clocks because each second minute hour has its purpose)

Natural Selection does not “create for a purpose” it adapts breeding populations to the environments in which they reproduce reproducers.

Emotel.

 

[bullfrog543]

The fact that you believe that is evidence of a kind. However, you present no evidence that your belief is correct.

I see biological evolution in terms of the scientific theory of the same name. This is very different to what you describe.

Natural Selection does not “create for a purpose” it adapts breeding populations to the environments in which they reproduce reproducers.

Emotel.

this is my beliefe based on the above faith beliefe and rightiousness basically its seperate from our souls the expansion between him god and our souls

4:11 am May 20/08

Seems as if there are power struggles between good and evil admiration desire unsinful and sinful alike such a caotic world we live in. one such example is the essence of second guessing. Religion presumabably second guesses them selves on a repetitive level to gain a positive atmosphere within society. Ex. In math two negatives equal a positive thus two wrong equal a right or guessing twice becomes good. However the meak are recond to rise so ill explain: this concept is of a natural sence upon the sixth sence. The meak follow such a respect of second guessing as well. Ex. I have schizophrenia I second guess my self at gambling on a constant level at times get mad at times don’t notice the issue at hand. Ex 2 when I watch tv at times I cant understand a movie fully that I once watched, the craving to be normal strives me into watching it once again, until I get board or have watched much of the show I at these times watch movies I have seen prior so I can keep trach of the movie and no whats going on during the show. Thus the natural craving of normality meets up with spirituality.

However atheists perceive the school method of not second guessing an answer on a test thus we remember science repeatedly at times over a hundred years second guess the equations set forth to them, these however decline the sixth sence to the issue of dumbness thus the need for required proof to obtain a stability upon the choice of being atheist. Basically they argue there perspective of the sixth sence has no relativity in their lives due to ignorance of choice, so a jealousy of hatred developes due to the sence that ignorance is strength, in return the six sences become barable.

In the dark realm of white and black witchcraft among gangs or their organizations it is seen they subsane this reflection at a high cost. They plead the ignorant fact that in order to survive to choose a dark path they are to support both religion and atheists alike to gain favor to battle second guessing as they understand it as repetive in nature, this is plainly a fear that spirituality the way life understands it might be true, (ex hell) this is recond with in a repetive nature to strive on the negativity of lieing on their chosen path of above. This coases a negativity not two negatives as in above, they gambled the idea that to escape fear there domination in the future would happen before jesuses second coming. We can however lead to the fact that out of ignorance on this dark path they should be strong since no proof of the thief in the night can be obtained, og ignorance is bliss it is recond the what if story of the century what if they haven’t the strength to meet up with the proof it at all it is wanted to be given.

This caotic search through the ages is not going to be the proof one needs, religion has decided against my better judgement that society is to be uplifted by not providing the proof of the thief in the night. The mians predicted that religion would decline this proof for the better good of society. The mians predicted in the year 2012 the end of the world would appear, this essay is there prediction. Threw the thief in the night having faith in world religion the end of the world was seen. For god once said only he knows when the end of the world is not an angel he spoke to nor jesus so that we can prepare for such a day my guess so we can recond to have faith along side the thief in the night. For the darkness falls from caotic means for societies vurtues have been man handled. The next day the sun shines brightly on all humanity, for the stars are suns as well and shine a glimmering light upon earth on the reconing caotic day of 2012.

For we in society try to do morally right we don’t all believe in the fragmentation of sin, though ignoring right from wrong has to balance our universe in an acceptable method this is why society has achieved the moral structure it has not threw ignorance but threw winning such things as freedomity by ww1 ww2 veatnom war ect as this land has spoken the words less we forget. We are not to recond the day of relying on our pears in society being abstractly unknowing upon the values we ask of them to fullfil.

I would like to take this time to sponser starbucks within the next few years within WTO world trade organization every nation upon every land drink in a social manner.

May the coming future be of world order freedom and equality with one pertaining religion.

I dare you to repeate reading this twice

you suggest repruducing but that started from evolution then a multi purpose device as above because of over population in society of todays world evolution can change to creation

 

[emotel]

I dare you to repeate reading this twice

you suggest repruducing but that started from evolution then a multi purpose device as above because of over population in society of todays world evolution can change to creation

Well I did read it twice but I don’t think that makes me particularly daring. But I can fix that

I dare to question you when you say:

Ex. In math two negatives equal a positive thus two wrong equal a right or guessing twice becomes good.

If you add two negative numbers together then the result is even more negative. If you multiply them then the result is positive - but only in the mathematical sense of that term.

If someone follows one bad act with another bad act then that’s like addition and it does not make a good act.

What does it mean to multiply one bad action by another bad action?

Emotel.

 

[bullfrog543]

ill give you scripture for your aswer about bad action -

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Luk 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
Luk 6:28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
Luk 6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
Luk 6:30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

 

[agapeist]

Science led me to God. I entered college as an agnostic, at best, if not an avowed atheist. That was 44 years ago. Were it not for my studies in both biological and physical sciences, I would still be wandering aimlessly outside of Gods Word.

To study science is to study the incredible beauty and grandeur of God’s creation not the study of meaningless facts (were God not involved).

I am not a believer in special creation, the sudden arrival of the universe, our sun, the earth and all living creatures as little as 6000 years ago. I do not ridicule or criticize individuals who do have that belief. Eventually, we will all learn the correct answer, but God providing the evolutionary process as a vehicle for the development of the universe, and the assent of mankind is a marvelous, and bewildering concept of immense complexity and yet elegant simplicity, and is certainly plausible answer for our creation.

The laws of nature seem to point directly to the creation of life and to mankind ourselves. Does it seem possible if not probable that the greatness of God would utilize a complex yet simple process to create humans in his own image? Is not the complexity yet joyful and beautiful simplicity of God’s gift to us in the form of Jesus Christ ample evidence that God has worked the miracle of life through evolution?

 

[VociMike]

I understand it abstractly, but I can’t help feeling the Darwinism does indeed “kill God”. I don’t like such an idea, but it seems like modern science continually erodes theism, God has less and less rome to act.

Imagine you were visiting some immensely complicated mechanism, let’s say the space shuttle. And you saw a screwdriver on the ground. Would seeing that screwdriver tend to make you think that the shuttle was not designed by intelligent beings?

Now what if you found a whole toolbox? Would a whole toolbox make you think the shuttle came about “naturally”? What about an entire building filled with machine tools, and another building filled with computers used for shuttle CAD (computer assisted drafting), and yet another building filled with more computers where the shuttle software is developed? Would all those tools make you think, yes, no doubt about it, the shuttle must have come about naturally. After all, you can see every design file, every piece of machinery, every line of software used to build the shuttle. The more you see, the more obvious it is that the shuttle came about naturally and did not require intelligent beings for its existence.

Right?

 

[emotel]

The laws of nature seem to point directly to the creation of life and to mankind ourselves. Does it seem possible if not probable that the greatness of God would utilize a complex yet simple process to create humans in his own image?

If God is all powerful then anything is “possible”.

However, we now know that human DNA is about 3,000,000,000 base pairs in length and that the information it contains will fit easily on a DVD with plenty of room to spare.

Arriving at that information via 4,000,000,000 years of the horrific process of evolution by natural selection doesn’t seem to me to be a more probable approach for a God to adopt than simply creating it in an instant. It also strongly suggests that a God is not necessary for it to happen.

Why would God choose a method of creation with such a strange combination of properties?

VociMike:

The more you see, the more obvious it is that the shuttle came about naturally and did not require intelligent beings for its existence.

Right?

Irony noted but Wrong!

That’s just a version of William Paley’s watch argument from 1805. Darwin knew about it and he identified and explained the fatal flaw in that kind of argument in 1858.

You are 150 years behind the times

Emotel

 

[VociMike]

Irony noted but Wrong!

That’s just a version of William Paley’s watch argument from 1805. Darwin knew about it and he identified and explained the fatal flaw in that kind of argument in 1858.

You are 150 years behind the times

Nope, this is not the watchmaker argument. I suppose you could call it the watchmaker’s tools argument, but it is fundamentally different from the watchmaker argument.

 

[emotel]

Nope, this is not the watchmaker argument. I suppose you could call it the watchmaker’s tools argument, but it is fundamentally different from the watchmaker argument.

Paley argued that the watch was too intricate to have happened “by chance” and concluded that an intelligent designer must have constructed it. That designer could have had tools and a workshop.

So I don’t see a fundamental difference. What am I missing?

Neither scenario parallels the evolutionary process as described by Darwin?

Emotel.

 

[bullfrog543]

the theory is such as monkey evolution - ex monkeys typing randomely on a computer cockpit 747 segreagating evolution in a system i call the athiest gambling system

 

[VociMike]

Paley argued that the watch was too intricate to have happened “by chance” and concluded that an intelligent designer must have constructed it. That designer could have had tools and a workshop.

So I don’t see a fundamental difference. What am I missing?

Neither scenario parallels the evolutionary process as described by Darwin?

My argument says nothing about “complex things must have a designer”. What it does do is show the fallacy of believing that the more we understand how the natural world is put together, the more that understanding eliminates the possibility of an intelligence being behind all those laws and facts.

Scientific discoveries are not evidence against God, and they should not be presumed to be so. They are entirely neutral to the question of God.

 

[emotel]

the theory is such as monkey evolution - ex monkeys typing randomely on a computer cockpit 747 segreagating evolution in a system i call the athiest gambling system

The monkeys and Fred Hoyle’s “Whirlwind in a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747” are monumental misrepresentations of what Darwin said. If you tell people that they represent evolutionary theory then you bear false witness against your scientific neighbours.

So you shouldn’t so that.

Emotel

 

[VociMike]

The monkeys and Fred Hoyle’s “Whirlwind in a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747” are monumental misrepresentations of what Darwin said. If you tell people that they represent evolutionary theory then you bear false witness against your scientific neighbours.

So you shouldn’t so that.

Emotel

Just to clarify my own position, I have no problem believing that God could bring about life as we know it through Darwinian evolution. I am not the least bit anti-evolution (though I am anti claiming evolution says things it does not, just as a century ago people claimed that Relativity said things it did not).

The supposed “gotcha” that “disproves” God in DE is the randomness of each mutation. Well, to an omniscient and omnipotent God, there is no such thing as randomness, so it’s no gotcha at all.

 

[emotel]

My argument says nothing about “complex things must have a designer”. What it does do is show the fallacy of believing that the more we understand how the natural world is put together, the more that understanding eliminates the possibility of an intelligence being behind all those laws and facts.

Scientific discoveries are not evidence against God, and they should not be presumed to be so. They are entirely neutral to the question of God.

I agree that science can never prove that God doesn’t exist. In fact, I can prove that science cannot prove that God doesn’t exist.

However, science can deliver tremendous explanatory power regarding ways in which life can come about without any need for an intelligent designer. That results in changes in what believing humans say about God’s actions because previous claims can be seen to be wrong.

That doesn’t sound very “neutral” to me?

Emotel.

 

[Nullasalus]

I agree that science can never prove that God doesn’t exist. In fact, I can prove that science cannot prove that God doesn’t exist.

However, science can deliver tremendous explanatory power regarding ways in which life can come about without any need for an intelligent designer. That results in changes in what believing humans say about God’s actions because previous claims can be seen to be wrong.

That doesn’t sound very “neutral” to me?

Emotel.

Science can also “deliver tremendous explanatory power regards ways in which life can come about” without any need for an ateleological assertion or denial of an intelligent designer.

It’s entirely neutral - it needs no reference to a designer or the lack of one to do what it does.