[_ Old Earth _] EVOLUTION - A BELIEVER'S PERSPECTIVE

[cupid dave]

Michael Ruse is confused and confusing matters. Evolutionary theory in and of itself can rightly be called science and it is studied and promoted by both theists and non-theists. There may be those who promote it as "an explicit substitute for Christianity," but that does not mean it actually is.

2X

I predict that the Hegel Dialectic Principle will ultimately bring together the anti-creationist arguments and the creationists misinterpretations of Genesis such that both the Bible and Science will agree they support one another.


We can see this vaguely in a cursory statement of the 12 acts of god as stated in Gen 1:





1) It is clear that the Universe DIDhave a beginning, 13.9 billion years ago.



(Gen 1:1)

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id19.html





2) The hot spinning molten matter thatwas to coalesce into the planet Earth WAS without form:



http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id132.html





3) There WERE six long Cosmic"days" since that Big Bang, which we call the six geological Eras.



http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/Eraclock.jpg





4) A Cosmic Dark Age DID precede thatadvent of that Act-of-God when "let there be light" began to floodthe cosmos after the darkness following the Big Bang.



(Gen 1:3-5)

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/DarkAge2.jpg





5) There WAS one ocean, once, whereall the waters had been collected together.



(Gen 1:9)



http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/superocean.jpg



6) Pangea/Rodinia DID actually confirmthat the dry land appeared, surrounded totally by water.



(Gen 1:10)



http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id123.html





7) The Plant kingdom DID establi@#$%@#$%@#$%@#$%self before the Animal kingdom.



(Gen 1:11)



http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id18.html







8) The Sun and the Moon and all theStars were "MADE," i.e.; given authority over the circadian EarthTime as soon as life appeared:



http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id126.html





9) Man WAS the last step in theevolution of Dominant Life on earth.



(Gen 1:27)

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/sethNoah.jpg





10) Man HAS managed to form a mentalIMAGE of "Father Nature" by understanding of His Laws and creation.



http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id21.html





11) Gen 5:2 says god called them, theman and his wife, the "Adamites,"... i.e.; a species:



Gen 5:2Male and female created heTHEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the daywhen THEY were created.



http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id31.html





12) The 22 names in the genealogy DOcompare directly, one-to-one, with the 22 now extinct species in the ascent toModern man.





http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id143.html



Book:

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-TwoSpecies of Extinct Humans

by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

 

[St. bernard]

This is clearly not the forum on which to debate your new religion. Check out the other places here, where you could do that.

And here's a tip; if you're less botlike in your behavior, you'll get more attention.

You know, and I know, that both your religions, 'evolution' and 'RC-ism' are the new religions! Mine on the other hand is based upon the original founded church, embracing the oldest texts supernaturally given to man through the Creators appointed prophets; none of which can be disputed - and is grounded on fundamental, (being or involving basic facts or principles; the Bible).

[This is clearly not the forum on which to debate your new religion] I do humbly apologise for swaying slightly but it was necessary within this discussion which acknowledges that the two subjects are closely related - since your's disputes mine and visa-versa. Since it is obvious that your intention is simply to flog a dead horse, this will be my final post on the subject!

My intention was to present a tangible record on the blog for new Christians who are facing this dillemma for the first time; that they may well have something to retreat to. This intention was communicated to the monitor of the blog when he moved the thread here. I also pointed out to him that fact that... I do not care to entertain argument - "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." I CORINTHIANS 11:16

What I did was present to you, in the spirit of the subject of the debate, tangible evidence of the creative power of God... in this age. I also presented the fact that the said Creator, didn't promote the evolution theory by virtue of the fact that He didn't have His prophet teach it; while He neither didn't correct His prophet when he disputed evolution as fallicy and conjecture; rejecting the somewhat 'new' theory of evolution as an implausible impossibility... laced with more 'monkey-business' than fact or evidence - and full of assumptions; and flawed with error as stated by their believers... See following...

D.M.S. Watson, known to the public for his B.B.C. talks popularizing the Darwinian notion that human beings descended from primates, declared in an address to his fellow biologists at a Cape Town conference: “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or . . . can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.â€

C. S. Lewis was astounded at Watson’s frank admission and responded: “Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori, (Involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to a necessary effect; not supported by fact) metaphysical, (Highly abstract and overly theoretical) prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?†Evolutionists Gould and Eldredge are not reluctant to admit that “The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stance embedded in the modern history of Western cultures: it is not a high-order empirical observation, induced from the objective study of nature.†Gould adds:

“But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method’, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology.â€​

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and author of a number of books on Darwinian theory, illustrates the implicit metaphysical starting point of the evolutionary dogma. Even when the facts point away from a certain scientific explanation for a given theory, evolution must be followed because the materialistic religion of Darwin must be protected against any Divine intrusion:
​

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.â€
​

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.†- Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978), 116.

Barbarian, I leave you with wishes of finding inner peace. A contrite and tender heart be your reward for your dedication in seeking the truth regarding the origin of life. You are one among billions who even bother.

The Lord bless you in your endeavour.

Your friend
St. Bernard
​

 

[St. bernard]

TOS we all agreed too when signing up for membership.......


Discussion of Catholic doctrine will be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only. RCC content in the End Times forum should relate to End Times beliefs. Do not start new topics elsewhere or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that is Catholic in nature.

STAFF

My sincere apologies for allowing the topic of our discussion to sway. I should have been more diligent. I stand rebuked and corrected!

St. Bernard

 

[Barbarian]

You know, and I know, that both your religions, 'evolution' and 'RC-ism' are the new religions!

"Evolution" is a natural phenomenon, not a belief. And of course, my Church is over 2000 years old.

Mine on the other hand is based upon the original founded church, embracing the oldest texts supernaturally given to man through the Creators appointed prophets; none of which can be disputed - and is grounded on fundamental, (being or involving basic facts or principles; the Bible).

And the Church from which you borrowed all that for your new religion, is mine. It doesn't mean you can't be a Christian, too. It just means you've changed a lot of things from the original.

 

[zeke]

"Evolution" is a natural phenomenon, not a belief.

We are dealing with the real world and in the real world you are very much mistaken - evolution has become a a secular religion...

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ ~ Michael Ruse, Darwinist - former professor of philosophy and zoology (University of Guelph)​

 

[cupid dave]

We are dealing with the real world and in the real world you are very much mistaken - evolution has become a a secular religion...

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ ~ Michael Ruse, Darwinist - former professor of philosophy and zoology (University of Guelph)
​

Yes, you are correct.

We religious bible banging evolutionist cal ourselves Theistic Evolution Bible Believers.

What we see is, in the next evolution, man will open into that generation with access into the Unconscious mind.

There we will have a personal relationship with The Truth, inside the trinity (Conscious/Subconscious/Unconscious minds) of our Psyche (soul in the Old English).

We who will have evolved and will replace the Modern Homo sapiens with this new creature in God's world, the Homoiousian sapiens, will have access to ancient memories of past lives, realizing that we are the next life in a genetic vine of past lives which are te continuum called everlasting life.
We see the past, not the future, and we will remember we have been here prevously many times.

 

[Barbarian]

We are dealing with the real world and in the real world you are very much mistaken - evolution has become a a secular religion...

Evolution is merely a natural phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory that explains it.

Yes, I know you found a philosopher who thinks science is a religion. But that's not the case. Anyone can check this for themselves. Go ask a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because Darwin said so", it's a religion. If he starts talking about evidence, it's science.

On the other hand, "Intelligent design" is a religion, a fact admitted by the people who invented it. It is among other things, an official doctrine of the Unification Church, sometimes called "the moonies."

A Unification Church minister wrote the accusation you repeated about Kettlewell's work. Would you like to see why it was a dishonest accusation?

 

[zeke]

Evolution is merely a natural phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory that explains it.

Repeat to yourself - 'we are dealing with reality'. Let me give you a test. Is the textbook statement below a statement of science of a statement of religion? You do know the difference - right?

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments. ~ National Association of Biology Teachers ​

Think a bit before you answer this time. Where does God fit into your version of evolutionism and does it agree with the statement above?

 

[zeke]

We religious bible banging evolutionist cal ourselves Theistic Evolution Bible Believers.

What we see is, in the next evolution, man will open into that generation with access into the Unconscious mind.

Think reality my friend - the faith of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the errors of evolutionism or the speculations of mysticism - or to put it another way, it has nothing to do with evolutionary mysticism. For the record - 'Theistic Evolutionism' is an oxymoron. You cannot reconcile atheism with theism.

 

[Barbarian]

Repeat to yourself - 'we are dealing with reality'.

Not when I read your posts.

Let me give you a test. Is the textbook statement below a statement of science of a statement of religion?

Science.

You do know the difference - right?

Yep. If it had appealed to the supernatural or denied the supernatural, it would be about religion.

Let's take a look at it:
The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments. ~ National Association of Biology Teachers

Think a bit before you answer this time.

The answer is obvious to a Christian. St. Thomas Aquiinas explained the issue a long time ago:

“The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency†(Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1)

To put it bluntly, you have confused the Carpenter with the hammer.

Where does God fit into your version of evolutionism

I don't know what "evolutionism" means. God is the Creator of all things, including this world, and the processes in this world, including evolution work according to His will. And as St. Tom says, He is capable of using contingency to serve Him as easily as He can use necessity.

I don't think you've given this issue much thought; certainly it should be obvious to any Christian.

 

[Adam]

Yes, you are correct.

We religious bible banging evolutionist cal ourselves Theistic Evolution Bible Believers.

What we see is, in the next evolution, man will open into that generation with access into the Unconscious mind.

There we will have a personal relationship with The Truth, inside the trinity (Conscious/Subconscious/Unconscious minds) of our Psyche (soul in the Old English).

We who will have evolved and will replace the Modern Homo sapiens with this new creature in God's world, the Homoiousian sapiens, will have access to ancient memories of past lives, realizing that we are the next life in a genetic vine of past lives which are te continuum called everlasting life.
We see the past, not the future, and we will remember we have been here prevously many times.

As a person who fully embraces the concept of theistic evolution, I can absolutely say that what you are describing is not theistic evolution.

Looks like something related to Scientology.

 

[Adam]

Think reality my friend - the faith of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the errors of evolutionism or the speculations of mysticism - or to put it another way, it has nothing to do with evolutionary mysticism. For the record - 'Theistic Evolutionism' is an oxymoron. You cannot reconcile atheism with theism.

Evolution is not atheism. There is no theology attached, but it does not take a position on whether or not God was involved. It's open-ended and a matter of faith whether one wants to believe God is responsible.

if you don't understand that, you really don't know what evolution is. Evolution and theism are not in conflict.

Evolution and fundamental literalists are. So while you can't reconcile evolution with the way you choose to interpret the bible, it doesn't mean that evolution automatically defaults to an atheistic position.

That's not the way it works.

 

[zeke]

As a person who fully embraces the concept of theistic evolution, I can absolutely say that what you are describing is not theistic evolution.

You need to think about the "superstitious awe" some attach to evolution. That may be you.

‎"Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost entirely useless, and the object of superstitious awe. " - David Berlinski, philosopher of science​

 

[zeke]

Science.

Then prove to us via the scientific method that "evolution is unsupervised". I don't think you can and the only thing you have proven is your inability to recognize the difference between a statement of science and a statement of religion. That is the weak point with theistic Darwinists (an oxymoron) - speculation is not scientific fact.

The root of the problem is that "science" has two distinct definitions in our culture. On the one hand, science refers to a method of investigation involving things like careful measurements, repeatable experiments, and especially a skeptical, open-minded attitude that insists that all claims be carefully tested. Science also has become identified with a philosophy known as materialism or scientific naturalism. This philosophy insists that nature is all there is, or at least the only thing about which we can have any knowledge. It follows that nature had to do its own creating, and that the means of creation must not have included any role for God. Students are not supposed to approach this philosophy with open-minded skepticism, but to believe it on faith.​

The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far beyond the available evidence? ~ Phillip Johnson ​

 

[Adam]

You need to think about the "superstitious awe" some attach to evolution. That may be you.

​

Maybe you are talking about the same superstitious awe that people have when they look at a sunset or a newborn child.


or maybe it's just the HS confirming Who is behind it.

But you've just undone your claim that evolution and atheism are explicitly linked.

 

[zeke]

Maybe you are talking about the same superstitious awe that people have when they look at a sunset or a newborn child.

That's an odd statement - I see nothing superstitious about a sunset of a newborn. Do you?

superstition: irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious​

But you've just undone your claim that evolution and atheism are explicitly linked.

But they are linked at the hip - Darwinism is atheism. Atheists and creationists have no problem with that concept - why do you?

In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created: it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. ~ Julian Huxle

...crucial difference between what the creationists believe and what the proponents of evolutionary theory accept concerns the issue of whether the origins of life were driven by randomness or by an intelligent creator. ~ Scott Todd, Professor of Biology
​

 

[Adam]

That's an odd statement - I see nothing superstitious about a sunset of a newborn. Do you?

superstition: irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious
​

But they are linked at the hip - Darwinism is atheism. Atheists and creationists have no problem with that concept - why do you?

I see nothing suerstitious about evolution. That was my point.


And, again, I don't know what "Darwinism" is.

If you are talking about ToE, then no, the theory of evolution makes no statements or predictions about the existence or non-existence of any god. It is neutral and does not address the question.

That will not change no matter how many times you assert otherwise.

 

[zeke]

And, again, I don't know what "Darwinism" is.

You don't? Have you ever heard of neo-Darwinism or have you been in-doors too much?

What is the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement?
The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism is a short public statement by scientists expressing their skepticism of Neo-Darwinism’s key claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the primary mechanism for the development of the complexity of life. The full statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Prominent scientists who have signed the statement include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe; quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia; U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov; and geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, Editor Emeritus of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum and discoverer of genetic recombination in antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces. - Discovery Institute​

Does that help?

If you are talking about ToE, then no, the theory of evolution makes no statements or predictions about the existence or non-existence of any god.

Obviously the Darwinists disagree with you...

In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created: it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. ~ Julian Huxley​

What does no room for the supernatural mean to you? Is Huxley's statement a statement of science?

 

[Barbarian]

But they are linked at the hip - Darwinism is atheism.

Doesn't seem very likely, seeing as Darwin suggested God created the first organisms. And seems even less likely when you realize that evolutionary theory has been formed by theists like Wallace, Dobzhansky, Ayala, Collins, and many, many others. I know how much you want to believe it. But it just isn't a realistic belief.

Atheists and creationists have no problem with that concept - why do you?

Most likely, because he doesn't share their need to make science and God inconsistent.

 

[cupid dave]

If you are talking about ToE, then no, the theory of evolution makes no statements or predictions about the existence or non-existence of any god. It is neutral and does not address the question.

That will not change no matter how many times you assert otherwise.

Not ToE, but the Copenhagen Interpretation which states nothing exists until the Wave Function that contains it collapses due to an Observer's presence.

Since we know that the Universe existed long before man existed, that "observer" (whom MUST have been responsible for the collapse of the Cosmic energy at the moment of the Big Bang) is the First Cause.