The Dangers of Theistic Evolution

[turoldus]

http://stkarnick.com/culture/2010/10/29/can-believing-in-theistic-evolution-pose-a-danger/

[turoldus]

My answer (we'll see whether they publish it)

Michael Ruse was definetely unto something when he said that Dawkins was God's gift to the anti-evolutionists; the Dickster keeps popping up in ID and O/YEC papers as though he was the alpha and omega of evolutionary thought and all you need to refute/discredit evolution is to refute (not easy) or discredit (far easier as he does most of the job himself; see his recent legal crusade against the Pope) Dawkins.

But to the point. Mr. Gitt mischaracterizes the Theistic Evolutionist stance - actually, it takes it backwards as it is not

The atheistic formula for evolution is:

Matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

but:

God + Matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods

To an omnipotent God, nothing is impossible - and nothing is random either. When scientists say evolution is random and unguided, they are just saying what they observe. It doesn't mean that no hand is at work behind the scenes. Only anti-evolutionists (and - em - Dawkins) think you have to choose between Biblical creation or Atheism.

Some of Mr. Gitt's other claims are just plain wrong. TE proponents don't believe that "As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and all life and their subsequent development (the principle of uniformity)" or "There was a smooth transition from non-life to life." A lot of Theistic Evolutionists are also proponent of the Anthropic Principle, and I doubt Simon Conway Morris to name just one would agree with you that life arose spontaneously and that it was inevitable. Finally, Theistic Evolution doesn't amount to "integrate God into the evolutionary philosophy" (once again, it's reverse) or denying Biblical teachings (it doesn't appear that Pope JPII and Benedict were soft on those, yet they believed in evolution) Now when the Bible seems to contradict the facts, this believer thinks it means we didn't understand the Book well and have to revise our reading of it.
Having said that, I'm not out to bash anti-evolutionists; they have every right to their view and I value philosophical diversity. Still, I feel compelled to defend MY point of view when it is under attack - especially when it's unfair attack.

Your comments are welcome (memo to atheistic trolls - you're not concerned)

[Deleted]

This article is a digest of another article written by a Young Earth Creationist. Just as I don't have time for Dawkins, Coyne, and similar ilk, I ignore the ideologues of the other side, who interpret the theory of evolution as a materialistic and atheistic bogeyman only because it counters their reading of the Scripture.

[twinc]

not only a danger but nonsense - since Evolution did not and could not happen then to say or accept or teach God created via evolution is to make an idiot of GOD in the image and likeness of those who do so say - twinc

[himself]

"to say or accept or teach God created via evolution is to make an idiot of GOD"

Ah, tis only those who confuse evolution (which is a transformation of pre-existing matter into another form of matter) with creation (which is a bringing-into-being from nothing) who are, well, confused. Creation is the conjoining of an essence to an act of existence. It is not the transformation of a dogbear into a dog or a bear. Evolution is no more against creation than electromagnetism is against "let there be light."

[wraggy]

"to say or accept or teach God created via evolution is to make an idiot of GOD"

The way that I see, to confuse an ancient Israelite theology of creation which reflects the world view assumptions of people in 5th century B.C. Mesopotamia with modern science is to make yourself an idiot.

And to think that creation texts from the Psalms, Genesis or Isaiah 40,
(which are probably driven by the desire to defend the worship of the national god YHWH over and against the nature gods of the surrounding nations) were written to prevent the godly from believing in the "pernicious doctrines" of Darwin, makes no historical sense whatsoever.

[twinc]

to take the word/s of fallible,flawed humans with their flights of fantasy and imagination and way out,weird and wacky opinions and conclusions and alternatives ad infinitum over and above and other than the original/s by God[omni science] as master of science and arts and creator of scientists is the height of foolishnesss and non science and nonsense[Rmns.1:25] - twinc

[twinc]

Dec 16, 2010 1:41:57 GMT himself said:

"to say or accept or teach God created via evolution is to make an idiot of GOD"

Ah, tis only those who confuse evolution (which is a transformation of pre-existing matter into another form of matter) with creation (which is a bringing-into-being from nothing) who are, well, confused. Creation is the conjoining of an essence to an act of existence. It is not the transformation of a dogbear into a dog or a bear. Evolution is no more against creation than electromagnetism is against "let there be light."

one of the greatest achievements of true science has been the dematerialization of matter - so no matter no matter how often we use the word - twinc

[ignorantianescia]

Hello twinc,

From what I can tell that passage is about the worship of object - idolatry, so I fail to see how this relates to scientific explanations. I can see how it can be made to relate to that, though, but I object to that.

[twinc]

Dec 16, 2010 8:11:27 GMT wraggy said:

"to say or accept or teach God created via evolution is to make an idiot of GOD"

The way that I see, to confuse an ancient Israelite theology of creation which reflects the world view assumptions of people in 5th century B.C. Mesopotamia with modern science is to make yourself an idiot.

God is both ancient and modern and the Bible is not just some ancient Israelite theology but the word/s of this God which does not change like most books on science - as for modern science this God is the creator of all science and scientists viz omni science and history omni presence - so the Bible is not a science or history book but where it touches on science or history it is faultless - what we do get is that some prefer to accept the words of fallible men over and above the words of an infallible God - twinc

And to think that creation texts from the Psalms, Genesis or Isaiah 40,
(which are probably driven by the desire to defend the worship of the national god YHWH over and against the nature gods of the surrounding nations) were written to prevent the godly from believing in the "pernicious doctrines" of Darwin, makes no historical sense whatsoever.