Theistic Evolution versus Science

No, not when your attacks on evolutionary biology are based on misrepresentations of it.

3 Likes

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

That spirit is not evident anywhere in your attacks on evolutionary biology, because what you are attacking doesn’t exist, particularly your use of the concept “chance.”

So if you think that evolution really is a huge threat to your faith, you have a clear duty to understand it far better BEFORE attacking. You have ignored every correction to your false representations of evolutionary biology that I have seen.

2 Likes

@Mercer For the purpose of THIS discussion, I think we must acknowledge the theological context. I agree about the misrepresentation, but that should be another discussion.

1 Like

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

@Greg, John is not wrong about the misrepresentations you make, but that is not the subject at hand, so let’s not derail the topic.

You are correct that it is about faith, what’s the point of your protesting the science when that’s not even what matters to you?

^^^ A rhetorical question^^^

@All — I’m not going to do anything moderation-wise yet, but there is potentially a split coming. Don’t hesitate to start you own new topic either. :slight_smile:

1 Like

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

You can’t split topics, but you could start a new topic. Copy any relevant comments to get things started. Tag people who might be interested.

??? Are you seriously objecting to science doing what science is supposed to do?? This seems confused too (and possibly a good topic starter). The appearance is that you have very different expectations of science.

This is about the fundamental difference between faith and reason. The term non-overlapping magesteria may apply.

1 Like

Dan, this is why Greg’s dependence upon his false portrayals of evolution is of theological relevance. :sunglasses:

1 Like

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Stand by for topic split. I haven’t figured out what to call it yet. :slight_smile:

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

1 Like

No, you really don’t, because you immediately dive into attacking a false version of evolution. You’re not listening.

Science and faith doesn’t overlap. And your testimony is not relevant to discussions of evolutionary science.
@greg the problem is not with your faith, it is with your humanity.

1 Like

That’s not what it should be about. It should be about you seeking the truth instead of mindlessly regurgitating false claims about science and scientists.

I will suggest that you are looking in the wrong place if you’re making it about other men merely standing with you in your belligerent misrepresentations of science and scientists.

Then you’re making it only about your ego, not seeking truth in Christ.

1 Like

No worries. I saw this coming.

Correct. Anyone can observe commonalities.

… but science cannot declare that these commonalities are a result of common decent evolution.

Sure it can. Science makes inference to conclusions all the time. Everyone does this at some level. Science is just a formalization of that process.

Now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty. I can turn this around and claim you (some theists) are making a science of God. That is equally wrong for the very same reasons. I claim this is wrong both scientifically and Theologically. For the former its practically the definition of science not to make supernatural claims. For the latter it’s idolizing the Bible as if it were a sciencific textbook, which it was never meant to be.

The reason I do not object to TE is that it makes no sciencific claims. It’s making a statement of faith thay “maybe God did it this way.” I have no basis to argue against TE, because it isn’t making sciencific claims.

* I’ve met a very few TEs who try to claim scientific proof of God - they are committing the same error of idolatry.

3 Likes

And science adds testing of the tentative inference, which is even more important than making the inference in the first place.

Greg, can you grasp and acknowledge this very basic scientific concept?

Can you grasp that you routinely omit it from your characterizations of science, and that many find that omission–and many others–to represent an unhealthy haste to judge others on nothing more than hearsay?

See if you can reply without mentioning evolution.

1 Like

Well it does indirectly… it goes as below-
Science overlaps with popular culture/world views which overlaps with faith.

The problem is that the communication of science, especially evolutionary science has become enmeshed with athiesm and materialism (usually the rabid anti theist kind). This is evident in any public discussion.
This has mainly happened with the enthusiastic support of the scientific community (or atleast the part that communicates with people and the silence of the rest). You have only yourselves to blame for a big part of this mess. This trend is only recently changing. Mainly because scientists are beginning to realise that being perceived as promoting athiesm can lead to political problems.

Disclaimer: A lot of the above is opinion. You can add IMO wherever appropriate.

That’s my main complaint against TE. Since it makes no scientific claims TE is just evolution, there is no need for the word Theistic in front of evolution. As for the Theistic claims they are Christian. So to me working scientists who happen to be Christians are the same as working scientists who happen to be not Christians. It is science and reason that is going to improve lives for humanity. Check out Dr. Swamidass’ new paper, that is what evolutionary science is all about - helping people.

1 Like

Science has nothing to do with atheism. Dr. Swamidass and millions of other working scientists are making the world a better place for billions of people. That has what science has done and is doing.

2 Likes