Theistic Evolution?

[VociMike]

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?

I think you’re conflating some people’s possibly incorrect explanations about how God works, with the way God actually does work (which we don’t fully know now, and will never fully know in this existence).

Your mention of an intelligent designer is a good example. Just because some theory that says “X required an intelligent designer to do Y” is later proven to be wrong, that doesn’t prove that an intelligent designer was not behind X in some different capacity. As you note, whatever we may learn about X can never disprove God, although it may disprove many human statements about God.

Myself, I don’t much care if ID is true or false. Either way, more of the watchmaker’s tools will have been revealed. And I think that’s darned cool.

 

[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.

If God is all powerful then he can clearly do that if he so wishes. So that’s not the problem. We need to ask “Why does he so wish?”.

Why would God create life in such a way that mountains of exidence existed indicating that it evolved naturally via an extremely painful and terrible process?

Nullasalus:

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.

The can be little doubt that the evolutionary explanation has either caused a change in what people say about God’s involvement or has shown it to be wrong. Consequently evolutionary theory cannot be said to be “neutral” relative to people’s claims about God.

Before Darwin there was no plausible alternative to the creation of life on Earth by an intelligent designer. Now there is.

Emotel.

 

[VociMike]

If God is all powerful then he can clearly do that if he so wishes. So that’s not the problem. We need to ask “Why does he so wish?”.

Why would God create life in such a way that mountains of exidence existed indicating that it evolved naturally via an extremely painful and terrible process?

Painful and terrible as opposed to what? Evolution is no more painful and terrible than Young Earth creation.

I think it’s the general situation brought on by the Fall of Man that you’re really talking about here, not evolution in particular.

The can be little doubt that the evolutionary explanation has either caused a change in what people say about God’s involvement or has shown it to be wrong. Consequently evolutionary theory cannot be said to be “neutral” relative to people’s claims about God.

Before Darwin there was no plausible alternative to the creation of life on Earth by an intelligent designer. Now there is.

Yes, when people don’t know the right answers they usually give the wrong answers. But the wrong answers given by ignorant people shouln’t be taken as evidence against God.

And again, finding the mechanisms behind evolution are like finding the buildings full of tools used to build the shuttle. In no way do the discoveries of those mechanisms refute the notion of God.

 

[emotel]

As you note, whatever we may learn about X can never disprove God, although it may disprove many human statements about God.

If humans are shown to be prone to make incorrect claims about God then there’s a philosophical problem. When they misrepresent what science is saying because of such conflicts then there’s a moral problem.

So I see little by way of neutrallity.

Myself, I don’t much care if ID is true or false. Either way, more of the watchmaker’s tools will have been revealed. And I think that’s darned cool.

I agree that how it all seems to work is awesome. But why did the watchmaker use techniques that strongly suggest that a watchmaker is unnecessary?

Emotel.

 

[Nullasalus]

Why would God create life in such a way that mountains of exidence existed indicating that it evolved naturally via an extremely painful and terrible process?

I wouldn’t consider it terrible at all, and ‘extremely painful’ depends on what a person means. Had pain, yes. Was tortuous? I don’t think so.

The can be little doubt that the evolutionary explanation has either caused a change in what people say about God’s involvement or has shown it to be wrong. Consequently evolutionary theory cannot be said to be “neutral” relative to people’s claims about God.

It’s certainly neutral relative to the existence of God. Specific claims about God? Sure - but those were changing all along, due to philosophical and theological developments, even in the Catholic Church along. We didn’t need science to tell us that Genesis may be in part allegorical - Augustine was doing that far in advance of science coming in. We didn’t need science to tell us other parts may mean different things than people said - there were theological arguments over such to begin with.

Before Darwin there was no plausible alternative to the creation of life on Earth by an intelligent designer. Now there is.

Not really, no. Evolution itself doesn’t provide an alternative to a creator - that position still requires as much of a metaphysical assumption as it did before. At most, evolution provided scientific challenge to a past conception of how life arose in their given forms.

And I’m a big fan of evolution, myself. Brilliant creative process.

 

[jerry117711]

1:28 am April 13/08

A world without gambling?
for your information i recieved $750 for a transportaion allowence since i didnt get a bus pass. I
gambled alot and spent alot wisely.

in america not so much the usa but mainly canada there is gambling at every corner store.
basically for the handycapped the ones on disability like me gambling becomes the only hope to
leave the state of being poor. with the 649 i could be a millionair for life and live happiliy ever
after be healthy with eating the proper foods and so on gambling for me is my only dream that
can take me away from being poor all my life.

so my question to you is why are people in america born a child of gods to be doomed to eat
food to get food poisoning live on the street go to food banks here at yahoo always be told stay
off the drugs, sad life actually why does god even bother creating disability people.

 

[VociMike]

If humans are shown to be prone to make incorrect claims about God then there’s a philosophical problem. When they misrepresent what science is saying because of such conflicts then there’s a moral problem.

So I see little by way of neutrallity.

I think you’re just expecting too much of human beings.

I agree that how it all seems to work is awesome. But why did the watchmaker use techniques that strongly suggest that a watchmaker is unnecessary?

Personal opinion now - because the reality we discover is always much more awesome (good word!) than our puny explanations. How much more incredible is the big bang, and the creation of the earth out of star stuff from gazillions of stars scattered throughout space, and bringing about life in all its myriad complexity through the astounding ballet of evolution - how much more incredible is that than a literal reading of Genesis.

I like to think that every time humanity thinks it has everything finally figured out, God lets us peel back another layer to discover unimagined new wonders. Just think how much more wonderous creation appears to us now than it did 100 or 200 years ago.

Sure keeps me humble, I’ll say that much.

 

[emotel]

Painful and terrible as opposed to what? Evolution is no more painful and terrible than Young Earth creation.

The Genesis concept of the creation of happy humans in the garden of Eden is neither painful or terrible. In fact it’s quite delightful.

I think it’s the general situation brought on by the Fall of Man that you’re really talking about here, not evolution in particular.

But that came after the act of creation?

Yes, when people don’t know the right answers they usually give the wrong answers. But the wrong answers given by ignorant people shouln’t be taken as evidence against God.

It is evidence that people can easily come to believe things about God that are not true. That’s another philosophical problem.

And again, finding the mechanisms behind evolution are like finding the buildings full of tools used to build the shuttle. In no way do the discoveries of those mechanisms refute the notion of God.

But it does raise the question of why would God use methods that suggest that a creator isn’t necessary? Doesn’t that remove a key reason for believing in God?

Emotel.

 

[emotel]

Just think how much more wonderous creation appears to us now than it did 100 or 200 years ago.

Sure keeps me humble, I’ll say that much.

Yes I feel that pressure to be humble very strongly. However…

in that context …

how humble is it to assert with supreme confidence that your human perception that the Catholic God exists is actually true? You are a mere human how can you know what science doesn’t know?

Emotel.

 

[VociMike]

The Genesis concept of the creation of happy humans in the garden of Eden is neither painful or terrible. In fact it’s quite delightful.

But that account says nothing about pain and suffering of the other creatures.

But (the Fall) came after the act of creation?

True, but there is no before or after for God. This just isn’t a problem for theists, although it certainly is a mystery.

It is evidence that people can easily come to believe things about God that are not true. That’s another philosophical problem.

People can easily come to believe things about anything that are not true.

But it does raise the question of why would God use methods that suggest that a creator isn’t necessary? Doesn’t that remove a key reason for believing in God?

Like I said, people can easily come to believe things about anything that aren’t true.

The reality is that all those things that you might see as suggesting a creator isn’t necessary, I see as more evidence of that creator. It really is a different way of looking at everything. I was a “lazy atheist” for 30 years before coming back to belief in God, and what struck me at that point is how, where before I never saw God anywhere, suddenly I saw him everywhere.

On a less personal note, as I wrote earlier, I think in every case where one could see less need for a creator, one can also see more evidence of the power and beauty and artistry of that creator. Every discovery presents a new glass-half-empty / glass-half-full moment.

 

[jerry117711]

god i believe segregates creation to protect it being never ending by saying he is the alpha and omega the begining and end well understand more once the time machine is public i presum its full of loops

 

[VociMike]

Yes I feel that pressure to be humble very strongly. However…

in that context …

how humble is it to assert with supreme confidence that your human perception that the Catholic God exists is actually true? You are a mere human how can you know what science doesn’t know?

Only by faith that this has been revealed to us by God.

I could just as easily ask how humble is it to assert with supreme confidence that God does not exist? (Not saying you make that claim, I don’t know if you do or not).

So in the end we all look about us, and look inside of ourselves, and decide what we think is true. And then we more or less follow that truth.

 

[emotel]

Only by faith that this has been revealed to us by God.

There’s an implicit loop in that It amounts to “You believe that your belief about God is true because you believe it to be true.” That loop bothered me a lot during my long Catholic education. In the end I decided that I don’t control what I believe. The evidence does.

I could just as easily ask how humble is it to assert with supreme confidence that God does not exist? (Not saying you make that claim, I don’t know if you do or not).

No I don’t make that claim. I can prove that I cannot prove that God does not exist.

So in the end we all look about us, and look inside of ourselves, and decide what we think is true. And then we more or less follow that truth.

My point is that the assertion by a human that God exists when science can find no evidence of that proposition and many similar views held by other humans are known to be wrong cannot be described as a “humble” attitude.

Emotel

 

[archiecs2007]

“how humble is it to assert with supreme confidence that your human perception that the Catholic God exists is actually true? You are a mere human how can you know what science doesn’t know?”

YES THAT IS TRUE THAT I AM A MERE HUMAN BUT CONSIDER THIS MY FRIEND THAT BEYOND WHAT IS HUMAN WE CANNOT PERCEIVE GOD ANYMORE. I MEAN THAT WE CAN BE CERTAIN WITH OUR PERCEPTION ABOUT BECAUSE WE ARE THE EFFECTS OF GOD. IF THE CATHOLIC GOD DOESN’T EXIST WE MUST ALSO CEASE TO EXIST BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLE OF CAUSALITY: EVERYTHING HAS ITS CAUSE…WE HUMAN CANNOT MAKE OURSELVES THE CAUSE OF OUR OWN EXISTENCE. ISN’T IT? THE ONLY BEING WHO CAN CREATE US IS GOD, THEREFORE, GOD CAUSES US AND HE DO REALLY EXISTS. NOTHING EXISTS WITHOUT BEING CREATED OR MADE EXIST BY A BEING THAT ALREADY EXISTED! RIGHT?!

SCIENCE HELPS US TO UNDERSTAND MORE FULLY GOD’S CREATION BUT NOT UP TO THE POINT OF ANSWERING MYSTERIES BECAUSE THEY ARE MYSTERIES THEMSELVES… AS WHAT ST. THOMAS AQUINAS SAID: FAITH AND REASON

MOTHER TERESA ALSO SAID THAT ANY WORD THAT DOESN’T BRING THE LIGHT OF CHRIST ADDS THE DARKNESS! HENCE, IF SCIENCE (SOME) DOES NOT GIVE FURTHER LIGHT TO GOD’S CREATION THEN IT’S UP TO THE SUBJECT TO ACCEPT OT DENY ITS ASSERTIONS:thumbsup: .

 

[jerry117711]

i stand on my believe of time machines the government does keep secrets from the public i just believe science is capable of it its like suggesting human cloans dont exist im not stupid to believe that with the sheep cloan 7 or so years ago the government hasnt dibbled into a little more then they say its all hush hush for 7 years no their are studies im not stupid.

but i will say this if i was in the time machine program i would tend to ww2 in germany do a compleate over head and make a trend so no wars develope in our future.

does this rely on a system of a time existing know no thats stupid it realize on the idea that science can and will create a time machine be it know or later.

 

[emotel]

THE ONLY BEING WHO CAN CREATE US IS GOD,

We keep tropical fish in aquariums. Why couldn’t it be that some alien super race created our Universe and we are their tropical fish?

How can you be certain that the Jewish God or the Muslim God didn’t create the universe. Or even Satan?

THEREFORE, GOD CAUSES US AND HE DO REALLY EXISTS. NOTHING EXISTS WITHOUT BEING CREATED OR MADE EXIST BY A BEING THAT ALREADY EXISTED! RIGHT?!

Well the theory of evolution seems to suggest ways in which we could have evolved without a creator being involved. Those who subscribe to “Theistic Evolution” don’t challenge that. They simply say that God let it happen that way. Trouble is that means that God doesn’t have to do anything more than provide the laws of physics.

Emotel.

 

[jerry117711]

12:18 am April 25/08

One of the best proofs God exists is mankinds seperation of good things and bad things good
people and bad people senario. We in humanity from an early stage learn from right or wrong,
some things are just plain bad and the law upholds society not to do bad things keeps us in line
sort of.

Possibly the grounds for the best argument against “divine command” ethics… does God define
good and evil, or does God just tell us because certain things are inherently good and some
things inherently evil?

If the former; if God said “rape is good”, would it really be good?
If the latter; God is answering to something he has no control over, and thus is not omnipotent,
and thus is not “God.”

I think certain things are inherently good, such as honesty. I also think things like rape and
murder are inherently bad. There may be some things that are “just in the eye of the beholder”,
but I think there are other things that are just plain bad.

our six sences is proof of God basically as we judge from our perception of them seperating
unpleasing livelyhood.

 

[jerry117711]

archie you suggest everything has cause i agree in cause and effect as stated below

8:51 pm April 26/08

Judge and be judged?
seems as people in society seek revenge in this world some even seek to be satisfied with no
due cause. evil people strive off these things more much more. at times they give there limbs in
war battles out of jealousy of their neibouring country. yes jealousy is similiar to revenge same
with satisfication which satinists crave off of one another.

do you believe in cause and effect? do you believe the ones craving for such things are to be
judged accordingly. or do you wish to point fingers at the inocence of church or state. we fight in
times of warfare to easy to point fingers at bush or iran not having trust in our own countries
decissions. revenge starts at opposition the ream of satanic ritually of such. we clutter the air with
such negative jealousy.

when is mankind going to stand up against all odds and tag those who own responsibility for their
actions.

doesnt exist at yahoo anywhere. it takes a gentel man of sorts to stand amongst warriors and
judge according to their fruits

 

[jerry117711]

here a little aboutwhat god creates a discused debate

2:12 am April 29/08

If God created everything?
Then God created evil? Therefore God is not fully good. I don’t buy the “We need evil to have
free will” theory either. Free will requires only that you may choose from what is availble. If evil
wasn’t availble we could still have free will. Therefore God = evil.

this is a darn good question oh ignorance is bliss.
if evil wasnt available you would have free will to be a slave under god because evil is available
you have a choice to be a slave under the devil if you say god is the devil then you have no
choice but to be a slave for all eternity thus man would have no choice if god was both good and
evil. thus a decline of free will and choice causing rebellion to gain choice and free will, required
to have personal opinion and required decissions fulfilled. god seperates good from evil to gain
choice to escape slavery to maintain an independence upon creation.

with great council uts aending decission as free will and choice floats as wind in the air. that
choice and free will are on a delicate global level though itspresumed we have gone threw the
thick of it in history, with being slaves. so it recomended and greatly decided that free will and
choice is for all but at different weights, mostly for christian or religion ect. this has been an
argued decission even though man wants to be his own master before his time is due
thereforthey are to be secluded from society seperated as a whole. recomendations are to bless
mother nature ue to sacrifice. and except the trinity in a positive way.

but God didn’t create evil because God is imaginary and doesn’t exist. We HUMANS created evil
just like we created "God. this another good question

Though partially true, god communicates threw the weight of prairs beliefe to mention a few. this
is apart of the will and he prefers not to go beyond it. It’s similiar to a mirror image or a cloan or
sproat

 

[VociMike]

There’s an implicit loop in that It amounts to “You believe that your belief about God is true because you believe it to be true.” That loop bothered me a lot during my long Catholic education. In the end I decided that I don’t control what I believe. The evidence does.

But as I said, I see such evidence for God everywhere.

Besides, why doesn’t the “loop” problem bother you just as much now? Do you really have any objective evidence that God does not exist, evidence that all reasonable people would accept? Either way you look at it, I think, the evidence is always fuzzy. It looks like one thing to me and another thing to you.

My point is that the assertion by a human that God exists when science can find no evidence of that proposition and many similar views held by other humans are known to be wrong cannot be described as a “humble” attitude.

But science has nothing to say about the supernatural. Asking for scientific (natural) evidence of God (supernatural) is like asking to hear the color red. You shouldn’t be surprised when you can’t hear the color red, and you shouldn’t take that as evidence that red doesn’t exist.

And finally, I’m sure many people who are in “your camp” hold views that are known to be wrong, but does that mean your views are necessarily wrong also?