justcool:

@thehomer,

Thanks again for your replies. But it seems we are now arguing just for the sake of winning the argument therefore there is no need continuing.

I'm not arguing to win. I'm arguing because I'm actually correct given the evidence currently available. If you think I'm wrong, then present good evidence against what I present.

justcool:

Every human knows that he is not just an animal; he is not just his physical body, he is equipped with a conscience that animals do not posses; a conscience higher than the law of survival of the fittest(natural selection law). To argue about it is a waste of time. If you cannot experience the spirit within you, then there is no way I can prove it to you.

I've already responded about the conscience. If this spirit hypothesis which you're yet to define is actually correct, then please present some evidence for it.

justcool:

You asked for a physical proof but the spirit is non-physical, you need spiritual abilities to recognize it. One who cannot feel or experience the non-physical will never be able to grasp it. There is no way I can convince you of the existence of something which you do not perceive; I don't have any physical evidence because the spiritual is non-physical, and beyond the realm of science. Thus when I am talking about spirituality, I am not talking about science.

But from your earlier posts, you seemed to indicate that it was a biological entity. I guess we wouldn't have to argue if you could clearly define this spirit you're speaking about. If such an entity is in us all, then we should all be able to detect it. Also, why should it be that if someone stops believing in it, it would no longer exist for such a person.

justcool:

There is no need for me to answer your questions about spiritually which you do not believe in. You will only call my answers myths.

If you answer with good evidence, I may just agree with you. But as a first step, I think you would need to define it and differentiate it from other phenomena.

justcool:

But you seemed to have misunderstood what I meant by saying that everybody has the same brain capability and capacity. By this I don't mean size. What I mean is that everybody has enough brain cells to grasp quantum physics, even a mad person have potential. Since every body has enough brain cells for this capability, the question remains why so many people cannot.

I've already answered this question.

justcool:

You said that variance of intelligence is expected due to the environment and genes. What about two brothers from the same environment, yet one ends up and intelligent scientist while the other cant pass high school. Why is the cause of this variance of intelligence? What about twins raised in the same environment, are they always of the same intelligence?

I thought I've already answered this too. There are lots of variables when considering intelligence. Being raised in the same home does not mean they will both develop the same way. Different cultures treat twins differently so the associations made in their brains will be different. They will both experience things differently.

justcool:

I never said the the back brain is the origin of ESP and psychic abilities; I only said that the back brain it the sit. Sit and sour are two different things.

And I pointed out the functions found in that location of the brain and how we know these functions. I'm simply saying that it is neither the origin nor the seat of ESP or psychic abilities (which have poor evidence in their support).

justcool:

If psychic abilities have not been tied to any part of the brain; then how are so sure that the brain is their source or that they are biological. Isn't this manifestation which science cannot tie down to any part of the human body an evidence that humans are just biological entities.

I said the subconscious has not been tied down to any part of the brain not psychic abilities.

justcool:

If other creatures could survive with very little brain power, why couldn't humans? You seem to imply that humans could not have survived with  less complicated brains; why did dogs, lions, cats and etc survive?

I already answered this. The human body is quite different from those of the examples you've given. Using those examples, dogs are faster, and have a better sense of smell among other things that humans do not have. Lions and cats have their own peculiar body characteristics which humans do not have e.g better night vision, better sense of smell etc. Humans on the other hand also have physical characteristics which they do not have e.g opposable thumbs, upright movement, etc. These abilities of humans require development of certain brain areas which of course were better selected for during their evolution.

justcool:

If only you know the implication of the fact that women have a more refined brain. The significance of this truth is great, for one who knows about the spirit and the laws of creation.

Well please enlighten me on the implications. I never said women have a more refined brain. I said more efficient even that was not in all seriousness (that was why I used that emoticon). What has been demonstrated experimentally is that the different sexes have different aptitudes for various tasks. Even the brain size thing is a rough measure considering that males have larger skulls and heavier mass than females who also have a greater amount of body fat. When these factors are taken into consideration, the gross brain characteristics are quite similar.

justcool:

You failed to provide the source of conscience which is peculiar to humans. If you cant tell me the organ of the body responsible for this conscience, then you have no right to attribute it to the body at all. Also you can explain it away be just saying that it is a result of our complex brain; as long as you cannot show which part of the brain produces this conscience and its mechanism, it will be illogical of you to label it a product of the complexity of the human.

I already answered this. I pointed out that it was the brain and that the main part was the frontal cortex. And it has been demonstrated experimentally (due to damage to this region from illness) that destruction of this part of the brain does lead to a diminished conscience and if it occurred very early, the affected party may not develop what we call a conscience.

justcool:

You implied that it is easier to examine human intelligence because humans can talk while animals cant. I am sorry but this is an illogical excuse. You don't need animals to talk in-order to know that they are not as intelligent as humans. You can examine their works. When was the last time you saw a dog build a rocket?

It is not simply about speech. It is the whole process. Designing the experiment, carrying it out and interpreting the result is fraught with lots of possible errors at each step. One would also need a very large sample size to effectively carry out these tests.
I'm not sure if your example of a dog and rocket is rhetorical because I'm also yet to see a tribal African build a rocket does that make him less human?

justcool:

And why do you wonder why aliments or damages to the brain affect the behaviour of the person thus afflicted? How does that prove that the person has no spirit. The brain is an instrument which the soul uses; if an instrument is damaged. shouldn't it be expected that work done by the use of that instrument be damaged too? If your tire busts in the freeway, it affects your speed and may affect your plan for the journey. Does this change in speed due to a damaged tire prove that the car does not have a driver?

You've not defined the soul or the spirit. I'm simply pointing out that currently there is no evidence for this spirit. I don't even know what it is you're speaking of until you're able to better define it.
Your analogy is deeply flawed. One can identify the driver of a vehicle and this driver is quite separate from the vehicle. But, this spirit you speak of, as separate from the human, well what can it do by itself? When does the spirit join with the person? Can this spirit use another person's body to carry out some functions i.e can people swap spirits? Who controls this spirit?
Also, do you then think it is acceptable for a person's body to be punished for a crime when it was actually carried out by the spirit that can leave the body for another body.

justcool:

Anyway thanks for a cordial exchange of ideas.

You're welcome. It's been my pleasure. Hope you enjoyed the exchange too.

Enigma:

Putting cat among pigeons:

Wasp has not evolved in 34 million years

KunleOshob:

^^^
Likewise the dragonfly has not evolved in over 400 million years.

What point are you guys trying to make?

^^^
That evolution is a figment of the imagination of those bent on denying the obvious existence of the creator God. If the myth of evolution was true, the insects stated above should have evolved into something else now but fossil records show that they remain exactly the way they were created millions of years ago

KunleOshob:

^^^
That evolution is a figment of the imagination of those bent on denying the obvious existence of the creator God. If the myth of evolution was true, the insects stated above should have evolved into something else now but fossil records show that they remain exactly the way they were created millions of years ago

I'm not sure if you actually want to know what the theory of evolution is about because it has already been clarified that if there is a pressure for an organism to evolve, then it will or go extinct.
Since you've mentioned the fossil records, how do you wish to explain the absence of fossils of modern organisms and the presence of fossils of prehistoric organisms?
Has it occurred to you that the way you seem to think evolution works is not the way it has actually been described?
Has it also occurred to you that if this creator God of yours were obvious, we would not even be having this discussion?

thehomer:

I'm not sure if you actually want to know what the theory of evolution is about because it has already been clarified that if there is a pressure for an organism to evolve, then it will or go extinct.
Since you've mentioned the fossil records, how do you wish to explain the absence of fossils of modern organisms and the presence of fossils of prehistoric organisms?
Has it occurred to you that the way you seem to think evolution works is not the way it has actually been described?
Has it also occurred to you that if this creator God of yours were obvious, we would not even be having this discussion?

Did you read what yo just posted at all? what determines "the pressure for an organism to evolve"? and why should some evolve and one remains unchanged for 400 million years? as it occured to you that the creator God at his discretion could have created different species at different times hence no fossil evidence dating back for all mordern organisms. Has it also occured to you that if this evolution myth was backed with solid facts we would not be having this disscussion? Are you also aware that the crocodile has been around since the age of the dinosaurs9 over 200 million years) Can you also explain what mechanism in evolution stimulates the "ëvolution process"? Are living beings "programmed" that way? In that case who or what programmed them that way?

KunleOshob:

Did you read what yo just posted at all? what determines "the pressure for an organism to evolve"? and why should some evolve and one remains unchanged for 400 million years?

The pressure comes from the environment, competing organisms etc. An organism would likely remain unchanged if it's survival and reproduction has not been greatly disturbed.

KunleOshob:

as it occured to you that the creator God at his discretion could have created different species at different times hence no fossil evidence dating back for all mordern organisms.

So how many instances of creation did he carry out? Why did he allow his creations to die out? Did he descend to create each individual specie?

KunleOshob:

Has it also occured to you that if this evolution myth was backed with solid facts we would not be having this disscussion?

It is backed up with facts in various scientific fields just that some simply deny such facts or formulate some convoluted hypotheses to force the facts to fit some preconceived notion.

KunleOshob:

Are you also aware that the crocodile has been around since the age of the dinosaurs9 over 200 million years) Can you also explain what mechanism in evolution stimulates the "ëvolution process"? Are living beings "programmed" that way? In that case who or what programmed them that way?

Yes I'm quite aware. I think the mechanism of evolution has already been explained here. Plus evidence has been provided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution

Living beings programmed which way? Do you mean to evolve? It's simply a natural process that occurs in living things. Either they adapt, evolve or die.

@thehomer
Assuming this your evolution myth is true, what "force" is behind it? As in who or what designed living beings with with the ability to "adapt" as a survival strategy? I would like to assume it involves intelligent thinking for living beings to be designed that way and not just "natural" who or what is the intelligence behind this ability to adapt?

KunleOshob:

@thehomer
Assuming this your evolution myth is true, what "force" is behind it? As in who or what designed living beings with with the ability to "adapt" as a survival strategy? I would like to assume it involves intelligent thinking for living beings to be designed that way and not just "natural" who or what is the intelligence behind this ability to adapt?

What do you mean by "force"?
Living things adapt and evolve in order to survive and reproduce. It's just what they do just as they grow, produce and utilize substances, they also evolve and adapt.
Your requirement of the presence of an intelligent thinking entity is simply not borne out when we consider what we actually observe of living organisms.
Or do you have someone or something in mind to fit this intelligence? Is there a way for us to confirm or deny the presence of this entity?

Mad_Max:


"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

I have never read anything so wise, from a human being, in my entire life. If only everybody would be this objective and honest.

I find it impossible to believe that some people do not perceive, not even suspect that there is a mysterious force that guides every process including the process of evolution.

Someone once asked me, "Do you believe in God as creator, or do you believe in evolution?" and I answered "Yes".



I believe God set a process of creation in motion, and looking back we see its traces and call it evolution.

Anyone who would love to discuss this further, you can open a thread and reply here.

InesQor: Someone once asked me, "Do you believe in God as creator, or do you believe in evolution?" and I answered "Yes".



I believe God set a process of creation in motion, and looking back we see its traces and call it evolution.

Anyone who would love to discuss this further, you can open a thread and reply here.

By "yes", do you mean that you believe that there is a God and that evolution occurred or do you simply believe one and not the other?

thehomer:

By "yes", do you mean that you believe that there is a God and that evolution occurred or do you simply believe one and not the other?

I believe both. I believe "evolution" most likely was the process employed in the creation experience. I believe God triggered and monitored a creation experience, and the best way we can describe the process looking back, trying to connect the dots, is to call it "evolution". The creation/evolution event was not random.

To me, this process is already completed and this is why it appears that "species" no longer significantly "evolve".

There is no rule that states one must not believe in God to believe there was an evolution of species (as corroborated by science).

This view I present is called Theistic Evolution and I am an adherent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life. According to the American Scientific Affiliation:

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.[1]

Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict.

InesQor:

I believe both. I believe "evolution" most likely was the process employed in the creation experience. I believe God triggered and monitored a creation experience, and the best way we can describe the process looking back, trying to connect the dots, is to call it "evolution". The creation/evolution event was not random.

To me, this process is already completed and this is why it appears that "species" no longer significantly "evolve".

There is no rule that states one must not believe in God to believe there was an evolution of species (as corroborated by science).

This view I present is called Theistic Evolution and I am an adherent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Is there a particular God that you wish to ascribe this process to?
Species still evolve or go extinct. The reason why you cannot see this is due to the rate at which it occurs.

thehomer:

Is there a particular God that you wish to ascribe this process to?

I don't see how this matters to the discussion though. Suffice it to say a creator-God (acting in harmony, a unity of purpose) set things in motion.

thehomer: Species still evolve or go extinct. The reason why you cannot see this is due to the rate at which it occurs.

Thanks for the information. Apparently then, creation is a continuous process.

InesQor:
I don't see how this matters to the discussion though. Suffice it to say a creator-God (acting in harmony, a unity of purpose) set things in motion.

It matters because there are various ideas of Gods out there. It may be more reasonable to ascribe the process of evolution to certain Gods than to others.

InesQor:
Thanks for the information. Apparently then, creation is a continuous process.

If creation is a continuous process, then it effectively eliminates certain Gods e.g Thor, Jehovah and Quetzalcoatl but not Brahma or Shiva. In order to ascribe a process to a certain entity, several important things have to first be known about the entity in order to conclude on whether or not it could have performed it.

thehomer:
It matters because there are various ideas of Gods out there. It may be more reasonable to ascribe the process of evolution to certain Gods than to others.

Whatever the various ideas of Gods in existence, what is certain is that there is a creator God (read singular, or plural but acting in unity). That's the thrust of theistic evolution.

thehomer:
If creation is a continuous process, then it effectively eliminates certain Gods e.g Thor, Jehovah and Quetzalcoatl but not Brahma or Shiva. In order to ascribe a process to a certain entity, several important things have to first be known about the entity in order to conclude on whether or not it could have performed it.

How does it "eliminate" certain Gods? The reports you have about the Gods you listed, whether the "likely" or "unlikely" ones, are not based on your first-hand experience, and even if so, are anecdotal and cannot be scientifically verified. You can't even prove that any of them exist or existed.

This is why I said what matters is that there was a prime mover. And that prime mover is referred to in theistic evolution as God. Whatever else you try to logically deduce according to theistic evolution is spurious conjecture.

I'm Christian but the point I am making here is that evolution and creation are not necessarily at cross-purposes. I'm not HERE attempting to make a claim for factual knowledge of the creator God. That is pure faith for me.

InesQor:
Whatever the various ideas of Gods in existence, what is certain is that there is a creator God (read singular, or plural but acting in unity). That's the thrust of theistic evolution.

Actually, that isn't certain. That is one of the things the claim is supposed to demonstrate for it to be valid.

InesQor:
How does it "eliminate" certain Gods? The reports you have about the Gods you listed, whether the "likely" or "unlikely" ones, are not based on your first-hand experience, and even if so, are anecdotal and cannot be scientifically verified. You can't even prove that any of them exist or existed.

You do realize that the same applies to whatever God you're claiming preformed the creation.

InesQor:
This is why I said what matters is that there was a prime mover. And that prime mover is referred to in theistic evolution as God. Whatever else you try to logically deduce according to theistic evolution is spurious conjecture.

How do we know that this prime mover isn't a spurious conjecture if we know nothing about it?

InesQor:
I'm Christian but the point I am making here is that evolution and creation are not necessarily at cross-purposes. I'm not HERE attempting to make a claim for factual knowledge of the creator God. That is pure faith for me.

I think evolution the way it is explained in biology is at cross purposes with the majority of the ideas of God out there that of Christianity inclusive.
The claim that this God of yours actually used evolution is a claim of factual knowledge of the God.

@thehomer:

Are you deliberately refusing to see my point?

thehomer:
Actually, that isn't certain. That is one of the things the claim is supposed to demonstrate for it to be valid.

The "claim" is certain ACCORDING to the beliefs of Theistic evolution (i.e. even if it's not certain which of "the various Gods in existence" did it). Don't you understand? It is STILL a claim.

thehomer:
You do realize that the same applies to whatever God you're claiming preformed the creation.

Dude. It's now obvious you're just spoiling for an argument. My ONLY point is that Theistic evolution is a belief that evolution and theism need not be at cross-purposes. In describing Theistic Evolution, I NEVER made any "claims" about the God performing the creation; that is my own personal prerogative of belief. Have yours, your own way.

thehomer:
How do we know that this prime mover isn't a spurious conjecture if we know nothing about it?

You don't (and won't) know, man. That's why you're atheist. What I am suggesting here is still based on faith.

thehomer:
I think evolution the way it is explained in biology is at cross purposes with the majority of the ideas of God out there that of Christianity inclusive.
The claim that this God of yours actually used evolution is a claim of factual knowledge of the God.

Read the above rejoinders.

I guess I need to explain the point a little more.

Scientific creationism argues that evolution is a myth, a lie, and an enemy of faith.

Theistic evolution affirms, in corroboration with science, that the universe was created through some kind of evolutionary process. However, unlike atheism, this view believes that God directed that process. The belief claims that God created the universe but did so through the process of evolution.

Many sincere, well-meaning, God-fearing people affirm scientific creationism, and I also respect these people. However, this position has major problems. First, it has scientific problems. It denies virtually every branch of modern science, including physics, chemistry, cosmology, geology, anthropology, genetics, and biology. From a scientific perspective, creation science is seriously flawed.

Take the Bible for instance, in Christianity. The literal creation belief has other problems because the Bible is not a science textbook. The Bible cares little about science and very much about theology, but is concerned with more-important subjects like God, faith, meaning, love, justice, ethics, and hope. Genesis doesn’t try to teach us how God created but that God created. (as can be seen in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, supposedly contradicting stories of creation from a pre-scientific age, I believe it was only a traditional Jewish account). The book of Genesis was not written to give us a scientific explanation of creation. It is not a book of astronomy, geology, and biology. Genesis is not interested in protons, DNA structure, radioactive decay, and geological strata. Another flaw in this scientific creationism belief is that it forces people to make an either/or choice between science and faith, a totally unnecessary choice. Finally, you may believe in scientific creationism and not theistic evolution, and I respect your beliefs. I do. But if so, you need to be honest about the scientific and biblical challenges that come with this view; grapple with them, and attain an acceptable resolution in your own mind.

@thehomer:
The thrust of my point is that you can be a scientist, and be a Theist. One needs not be atheist to believe in evolution.

Discussions about how do you know which one of the Gods directed the process, and other such, are outside the scope of the topic. Each theist already has their theistic beliefs before accepting or refuting evolution.

justcool: Its funny how in reading the explanation of natural selection one, whose eyes are open, can clearly see that humans are not just products of natural selection. The theory itself testifies that humans are just products of nature, like animals. All animals behaviour can be explained through the theory of evolution and natural selection. But in the case of humans, we find behaviours that did not originate from the natural laws of selection and evolution. There is something in humans that to some extent, even goes contrary to what one would expect from nature. Behaviorally humans have some qualities that could not have been products of biological evolution.

Let just give one example--shame.

Shame is peculiar with humans; and actually, to some extent it goes contrary to evolution because the feeling of shame curtails mating, which is necessary for the reproduction. Since one of the goals of adaptation is to produce offspring, why would humans evolve the feeling of shame which interferes with their mating.
Two healthy animals at the mating period, once they come in contact and once all the prerequisites are met, they mate. This not feeling guilty about mating allows them to mate often and this ensures more offspring. Also, this not being ashamed to show their privates and not being ashamed of who is watching them makes it very easy for them to mate.

But when two healthy humans, of the right age met, they don’t just take of their cloths and mate. Shame comes in to prevent them from doing this. The woman never feels very comfortable walking around unclothed, neither does the man. Why would they evolve this hindrance to mating which is necessary for the survival of their specie.

And actually why wear cloths at all; their bodies could have adapted to regional temperatures like animal bodies. The answer is that humans wear cloths because they are ashamed of being unclothed. But why would this feeling of shame exist, if humans are just biological entities. Why did they evolve this feeling of shame; why be ashamed of your unclothedness when you have to be naked to perform one of the rituals that ensure the survival of your specie? It doesn’t make sense.

It is easy to explain, through the theory of evolution, why creatures evolved the urge to mate, mating is necessary for them to reproduce. But how can you, in the light of the theory of evolution, explain the feeling of shame in humans.

Humans, like all animals, feel the urge to mate( physical intimacy), this is natural, and can be explained by natural selection and evolution. But in the case of humans, this urge for intercourse is usually accompanied by or hindered by the feeling of shame.

To me, this is one of the evidences that humans are not just biological entities. Granted our bodies are biological vehicles which came about through the process of evolution. But inside us resides something else, something that is alien to the physical.  That’s why you cant explain away the behavior of humans, in the light of the theory of evolution.   

Another one is “conscience.”  This is another thing that humans poses that animals do not poses; and “conscience” is not necessary for biological evolution and natural selection. To some extent it actually detrimental to it.

This is one of the most brilliant posts ever made on nairaland.

justcool:

I have never read anything so wise, from a human being, in my entire life. If only everybody would be this objective and honest.

I find it impossible to believe that some people do not perceive, not even suspect that there is a mysterious force that guides every process including the process of evolution.

Another one.

Mad_Max:

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

Another one of the best.

InesQor: @thehomer:

Are you deliberately refusing to see my point?

Well what is your point? As far as I can tell, you're claiming that some God is needed for evolution to occur. If you're making some other point, please let me know.

InesQor:
The "claim" is certain ACCORDING to the beliefs of Theistic evolution (i.e. even if it's not certain which of "the various Gods in existence" did it). Don't you understand? It is STILL a claim.

You do realize that the fact that a claim is consistent with certain beliefs doesn't mean it is actually true. e.g a claim that faeries are responsible for mushrooms is certain according to the beliefs of those who believe in faeries. This doesn't mean it is actually true. Those who believe in faeries have to demonstrate that this claim is true and I don't see how that can be done without knowing something about the faeries.

InesQor:
Dude. It's now obvious you're just spoiling for an argument. My ONLY point is that Theistic evolution is a belief that evolution and theism need not be at cross-purposes. In describing Theistic Evolution, I NEVER made any "claims" about the God performing the creation; that is my own personal prerogative of belief. Have yours, your own way.

I've noticed that often when people say someone else is just spoiling for an argument, what they actually mean is that they don't have a response or they don't understand the point being made.
When you say that evolution and theism need not be at cross purposes, you do realize that I've already said that that conclusion depends on the sort of God you're thinking about. How can you tell they're not at cross purposes if you don't know about the God?
So far, scientists haven't needed a God to explain the theory so why introduce one?

InesQor:
You don't (and won't) know, man. That's why you're atheist. What I am suggesting here is still based on faith.

Sorry but religious faith just doesn't cut it. It in fact nullifies your attempt at a science based argument because scientific arguments are based on evidence while religious faith isn't. That faith sometimes taken against the available evidence.

InesQor:
Read the above rejoinders.

They don't help your point.

InesQor: I guess I need to explain the point a little more.

Scientific creationism argues that evolution is a myth, a lie, and an enemy of faith.

Theistic evolution affirms, in corroboration with science, that the universe was created through some kind of evolutionary process. However, unlike atheism, this view believes that God directed that process. The belief claims that God created the universe but did so through the process of evolution.

Many sincere, well-meaning, God-fearing people affirm scientific creationism, and I also respect these people. However, this position has major problems. First, it has scientific problems. It denies virtually every branch of modern science, including physics, chemistry, cosmology, geology, anthropology, genetics, and biology. From a scientific perspective, creation science is seriously flawed.

Take the Bible for instance, in Christianity. The literal creation belief has other problems because the Bible is not a science textbook. The Bible cares little about science and very much about theology, but is concerned with more-important subjects like God, faith, meaning, love, justice, ethics, and hope. Genesis doesn’t try to teach us how God created but that God created. (as can be seen in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, supposedly contradicting stories of creation from a pre-scientific age, I believe it was only a traditional Jewish account). The book of Genesis was not written to give us a scientific explanation of creation. It is not a book of astronomy, geology, and biology. Genesis is not interested in protons, DNA structure, radioactive decay, and geological strata. Another flaw in this scientific creationism belief is that it forces people to make an either/or choice between science and faith, a totally unnecessary choice. Finally, you may believe in scientific creationism and not theistic evolution, and I respect your beliefs. I do. But if so, you need to be honest about the scientific and biblical challenges that come with this view; grapple with them, and attain an acceptable resolution in your own mind.

@thehomer:
The thrust of my point is that you can be a scientist, and be a Theist. One needs not be atheist to believe in evolution.

I'm not disagreeing with this. After all people have been known to hold opposing ideas and rationalize it in some ways. What I'm trying to show you is that while it is possible to have those conflicting beliefs, those beliefs when properly examined are contradictory.

InesQor:
Discussions about how do you know which one of the Gods directed the process, and other such, are outside the scope of the topic. Each theist already has their theistic beliefs before accepting or refuting evolution.

No the question about which God directed the process isn't outside the scope of the topic because according to some, there are multiple Gods out there. Don't you see that if each theist has their own theistic beliefs about evolution, they cannot all be right? Won't you want to know if the one you hold isn't right?

thehomer:

I'm not disagreeing with this. After all people have been known to hold opposing ideas and rationalize it in some ways. What I'm trying to show you is that while it is possible to have those conflicting beliefs, those beliefs when properly examined are contradictory.

Think clearly. Your problem is with Theism and not Theistic Evolution.

thehomer:
No the question about which God directed the process isn't outside the scope of the topic because according to some, there are multiple Gods out there. Don't you see that if each theist has their own theistic beliefs about evolution, they cannot all be right? Won't you want to know if the one you hold isn't right?

Who cares, really? Since to you the Gods don't exist, why are you bothered? I'm not bothered. And I'm not trying to look for one-size-fits-all answers for everyone.

@Deep Sight: My own best post on this thread is by Mad_Max. I totally agree with it:

Mad_Max: Is there anything in the theory of evolution that validates atheism, or disproves the existence of God? Does the theory have anything to say about 'intelligence' or 'God', or merely how organisms adapt over long periods of time? Is it a religious theory, or a scientific one? Why is it so hard for a few of you to stop treating evolution like some atheism credo, when it's not? Many atheists know better. They know exactly why they're atheists, and don't try to use anything in science as a lame crutch, because Science has little foundation to offer atheism, or any other religion.  Hinduism, Buddhism has accepted evolution as a theory, as has Catholic Christians and many other major religions. Do you see them abandoning God because evolution somehow 'proved' there's no God or no intent behind it? Do you know how far some physicists are going, in a bid to contain the statistical near-impossibility of our being here by 'chance'? Isn't religious belief on the increase, in spite of the acceptance of evolution? Have scientists cleared all the muddle in evolution, or discovered our origins? There are believers and atheists in science, whose fields are evolutionary biology, who don't draw fantastic extrapolations from evolution, or go beyond their facts. On what basis do you? Listen to yourself.

InesQor:
Think clearly. Your problem is with Theism and not Theistic Evolution.

Think clearly. If theism is problematic, then theistic evolution is also problematic. If you accept theistic evolution, then you need to come to terms with the fact that it is contradictory based on the available science.

InesQor:
Who cares, really? Since to you the Gods don't exist, why are you bothered? I'm not bothered. And I'm not trying to look for one-size-fits-all answers for everyone.

You should care otherwise you wouldn't be asking for a discussion on the topic. What you're demonstrating is an internal conflict based on the possibility that you could be shown to be wrong so you try to shy away from it.

thehomer:

Think clearly. If theism is problematic, then theistic evolution is also problematic. If you accept theistic evolution, then you need to come to terms with the fact that it is contradictory based on the available science.

Oh please! Theism is not problematic, it is a matter of faith and you don't have to accept it.

thehomer:
You should care otherwise you wouldn't be asking for a discussion on the topic. What you're demonstrating is an internal conflict based on the possibility that you could be shown to be wrong so you try to shy away from it.

I called for a discussion on theistic evolution and NOT on theism. My call is for one who already accepts theism, as theistic evolution by definition has no meaning to one who doesn't.

One again, the post by Mad_Max. Looks like you really need it.

Mad_Max:
Is there anything in the theory of evolution that validates atheism, or disproves the existence of God? Does the theory have anything to say about 'intelligence' or 'God', or merely how organisms adapt over long periods of time? Is it a religious theory, or a scientific one? Why is it so hard for a few of you to stop treating evolution like some atheism credo, when it's not? Many atheists know better. They know exactly why they're atheists, and don't try to use anything in science as a lame crutch, because Science has little foundation to offer atheism, or any other religion. Hinduism, Buddhism has accepted evolution as a theory, as has Catholic Christians and many other major religions. Do you see them abandoning God because evolution somehow 'proved' there's no God or no intent behind it? Do you know how far some physicists are going, in a bid to contain the statistical near-impossibility of our being here by 'chance'? Isn't religious belief on the increase, in spite of the acceptance of evolution? Have scientists cleared all the muddle in evolution, or discovered our origins? There are believers and atheists in science, whose fields are evolutionary biology, who don't draw fantastic extrapolations from evolution, or go beyond their facts. On what basis do you? Listen to yourself.

InesQor:
Oh please! Theism is not problematic, it is a matter of faith and you don't have to accept it.

That theism isn't problematic to you doesn't mean it isn't problematic. Recall my example on faeries and mushrooms. Also recall my point on introducing faith into what should be a science based discussion.

InesQor:
I called for a discussion on theistic evolution and NOT on theism. My call is for one who already accepts theism, as theistic evolution by definition has no meaning to one who doesn't.

A call for a discussion on theistic evolution necessitates an understanding of the God concept being assumed. If you're merely asking for someone who already believes as you do, then you're merely asking for permission to continue with a confirmation bias. After all, the reason why creationists disagree with you is also based on their idea of the God behind the process isn't it?

InesQor:
One again, the post by Mad_Max. Looks like you really need it.

I don't agree with that post but it will be unfair for me to criticize it here and now since the author isn't here to defend herself.

Bump

a great read for folks interested in knowing what evolution really means. . .

Evolution is balderdash