[_ Old Earth _] "Theistic Evolutionist" is an oxymoron

[Poke]

“Theistic Evolutionist†is an oxymoron. The model of Evolution is built on the assumption that God was not involved in Creation. Even if this assumption is denied, it cannot be denied that God is not part of the model of Evolution. So, how about a better term for the Theistic Evolutionists, Evolutionists who claim to believe in God? They come in different flavors, we need different terms.

Pantheist Evolutionist: A view identifying God with the universe and its phenomena. They reject God playing a role in Evolution through supernatural intervention. The substance of their belief of Creation is identical to that belief of Atheists.

God-of-the-Gaps Evolutionist: These Evolutionists believe God supernaturally intervened in areas where Atheist Evolutionists have an exceptionally difficult time imagining a story that anyone can find plausible. For example, God created life and from there it evolved.

God-the-Deceiver Evolutionist: They correctly deny the power of nature to be as creative as Evolution demands, but believe that God created the appearance of Evolution. For example, God continually created new, progressively more complex species over hundreds of millions of years.

 

[moniker]

The model of Evolution is built on the assumption that God was not involved in Creation.

That's news to me. Evolution was never much concerned with the beginning of life so much as what happens/ed afterward. You might be thinking of abiogenesis, which isn't supported that strongly.

 

[Poke]

I would have included another type of Evolutionist, except this kind doesn't always claim to believe in God.

You-are-ignorant Evolutionist: These Evolutionists like to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of ignorance rather than reply to the argument. For example: "Evolution doesn't address the origin of life."

 

[moniker]

There's an argument? I thought you were just adding more nouns to the catalogue. Still, what I said is true. There are various other theories concerned with how life began and none of them are terribly compelling, although I must admit I'm not very well versed in them since it's mainly touched on at masters or high end undergrad level biology courses.

 

[jwu]

The model of Evolution is built on the assumption that God was not involved in Creation. Even if this assumption is denied, it cannot be denied that God is not part of the model of Evolution. So, how about a better term for the Theistic Evolutionists, Evolutionists who claim to believe in God? They come in different flavors, we need different terms.

Just because the theory of evolution doesn't explicilty include God doesn't mean that it excludes God. It simply makes no statement at all about God. What exactly causes mutations: if these are controlled by a deity or not by means of influencing e.g. apparently random quantum events is completely left open.

The theory of evolution isn't any more atheistic than the theories of electricity, gravity, germ theory or atomic theory. All are agnostic.

<editing as a test>

 

[LittleNipper]

“Theistic Evolutionist†is an oxymoron. The model of Evolution is built on the assumption that God was not involved in Creation. Even if this assumption is denied, it cannot be denied that God is not part of the model of Evolution. So, how about a better term for the Theistic Evolutionists, Evolutionists who claim to believe in God? They come in different flavors, we need different terms.

Pantheist Evolutionist: A view identifying God with the universe and its phenomena. They reject God playing a role in Evolution through supernatural intervention. The substance of their belief of Creation is identical to that belief of Atheists.

God-of-the-Gaps Evolutionist: These Evolutionists believe God supernaturally intervened in areas where Atheist Evolutionists have an exceptionally difficult time imagining a story that anyone can find plausible. For example, God created life and from there it evolved.

God-the-Deceiver Evolutionist: They correctly deny the power of nature to be as creative as Evolution demands, but believe that God created the appearance of Evolution. For example, God continually created new, progressively more complex species over hundreds of millions of years.

Actually, I might suggest that "Theistic Evolution" is more of a monkeymoron..................

 

[Poke]

Just because the theory of evolution doesn't explicilty include God doesn't mean that it excludes God. It simply makes no statement at all about God.

1) I didn't say "Theory of Evolution" which Evolutionists oxymoronically say is a fact. I said "model of Evolution." 2) I did say that God is not part of the model of evolution, which covers "makes no statement..." And, inexplicably, you seem to think this is just a coincidence.

What exactly causes mutations: if these are controlled by a deity or not by means of influencing e.g. apparently random quantum events is completely left open.

But, which way do you lean between those two options? Are you a pantheist or a god-of-the-gapper?

The theory of evolution isn't any more atheistic than the theories of electricity, gravity, germ theory or atomic theory. All are agnostic.

Do you call yourself a Theistic Electrician? The theories of electricity et. al. don't make any statements, for reasons of a presumption of atheism, that contradict what we know about nature. Evolution contradicts what we know about nature.

 

[Poke]

Actually, I might suggest that "Theistic Evolution" is more of a monkeymoron..................

Good one. I hope I'm forgiven for the ox reference.

 

[bladed-truth]

Do you call yourself a Theistic Electrician? The theories of electricity et. al. don't make any statements, for reasons of a presumption of atheism, that contradict what we know about nature. Evolution contradicts what we know about nature.

Not true, by looking in the fossil record it shows numerous species that bear a striking resemblance to each other, that are apparently changing over large periods of time. Science then seeks to find an explanation for this, the explanation is that species change over large amounts of time, that seems perfectly in line with nature.

Evolution has nothing to do with the beggining of life, it just says: 'Life is here, life apears to change over large amounts of time...' then proceeds to attempt to explain why this might be the case.

Personally I believe that if God is a perfect designer then he made a universe that would work, everything works by mechanisms, things fall because of gravity etc, if you were to design an engine would you desgin it so that you had to keep reaching inside and screwing with it to keep it running?

So many religious people seem to think Science is a big conspiracy to debunk religion, the truth is simply that science finds religion irrelevent unless there is evidence of direct involvement of God. You see something happen and you try to figure out why.

 

[jwu]

1) I didn't say "Theory of Evolution" which Evolutionists oxymoronically say is a fact. I said "model of Evolution."

Please elaborate on the difference between the two. It sounds like semantics to me.

2) I did say that God is not part of the model of evolution, which covers "makes no statement..." And, inexplicably, you seem to think this is just a coincidence.

Making no statement either way does not equal making a negative statement.

But, which way do you lean between those two options? Are you a pantheist or a god-of-the-gapper?

Neither of the options describes my position.

Do you call yourself a Theistic Electrician? The theories of electricity et. al. don't make any statements, for reasons of a presumption of atheism, that contradict what we know about nature.

In the sense that i believe that God made the laws of physics which also govern the flow of electrons, one could say so.

Evolution contradicts what we know about nature.

Please give examples.

 

[Poke]

Not true, by looking in the fossil record it shows numerous species that bear a striking resemblance to each other, that are apparently changing over large periods of time. Science then seeks to find an explanation for this, the explanation is that species change over large amounts of time, that seems perfectly in line with nature.

I think you have that backwards. Darwin said in his book, "He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in successive stages of the same great formation?" Emphasis mine. Darwin was explaining that the fossil record doesn't support Evolution, and he blamed the imperfection of the fossil record for this. Darwin also apparently didn't know anything about statistics.

Evolutionists didn't develop their hypothesis by looking at the fossil record. The have been combing through the fossil record desperately looking for something to support their hypothesis (which they named a theory and call a fact, what a bunch clowns).

Evolution has nothing to do with the beggining of life, it just says: 'Life is here, life apears to change over large amounts of time...' then proceeds to attempt to explain why this might be the case.

I'm looking at a bigger picture than you're looking at, apparently.

Personally I believe that if God is a perfect designer then he made a universe that would work, everything works by mechanisms, things fall because of gravity etc, if you were to design an engine would you desgin it so that you had to keep reaching inside and screwing with it to keep it running?

If I made a machine, it would do from the start what I intended it to do. It wouldn't need to evolved the point I wanted it to be at.

So many religious people seem to think Science is a big conspiracy to debunk religion,

So many Evolutionists want to conflate Evolution with science. Evolution is an open effort to make God redundant.

 

[Poke]

Please elaborate on the difference between the two. It sounds like semantics to me.

The model of Evolution is much bigger than the theory of Evolution.

Making no statement either way does not equal making a negative statement.

Bottom line, I explicitly covered that, for those who reject the fact that Evolution does make a negative statement. Go back an reread my original post.

[quote:07e3e]But, which way do you lean between those two options? Are you a pantheist or a god-of-the-gapper?

Neither of the options describes my position.[/quote:07e3e]

What is your position? Does God control mutations? Are mutations simply random (i.e. uncaused)?

In the sense that i believe that God made the laws of physics which also govern the flow of electrons, one could say so.

So, why don't you say so? Anytime you say anything about what you believe or who you are, why don't you prefix it with "theistic?"

[quote:07e3e]Evolution contradicts what we know about nature.

Please give examples.[/quote:07e3e]

If you empirically studies any species over time, it would either remain (fuzzy) at a fixed point or it would degenerate over time. It would not evolve. The Theory of Evolution is an hypothesis about what happens and has happened. It's only an hypothesis (or theory) because it is not observed. It's a refuted hypothesis because it isn't observed even when we're looking where we should see it.

 

[jwu]

The model of Evolution is much bigger than the theory of Evolution.

Do you mean the phylogenic tree by this; as opposed to "change in frequency of allele"?

This doesn't deny the involvement of a deity either, it makes no statement either way.

Bottom line, I explicitly covered that, for those who reject the fact that Evolution does make a negative statement. Go back an reread my original post.

I have read it and found it lacking. Let's take another look at it:

The model of Evolution is built on the assumption that God was not involved in Creation.

Only insofar as that no creatio ex nihilo on a large scale happened. Any other tinkerings are perfectly compatible with it.

Even if this assumption is denied, it cannot be denied that God is not part of the model of Evolution.

Just like atomic theory is not part of it. Evolution doesn't care what causes the mutations which drive it, just like it doesn't care about how atoms are formed. This is simply outside of its scope.

I think you have that backwards. Darwin said in his book, "He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in successive stages of the same great formation?" Emphasis mine. Darwin was explaining that the fossil record doesn't support Evolution, and he blamed the imperfection of the fossil record for this. Darwin also apparently didn't know anything about statistics

In the 150 years since Darwin we have found plenty of transitionals.
What exactly are you looking for when you ask for one? I'd like to fix the goalposts before i show you examples.

I'm looking at a bigger picture than you're looking at, apparently.

Life exists. Evidence indicates that in the past it was very different. Evolution explains those changes. How life got here is irrelevant for that, it doesn't make the evidence for the different past go away.

If I made a machine, it would do from the start what I intended it to do. It wouldn't need to evolved the point I wanted it to be at.

Today things like plane wings are designed using evolutionary algorithms...

So many Evolutionists want to conflate Evolution with science. Evolution is an open effort to make God redundant.

What part of evolution is not scientific then? Please be specific.
And no, it's not an effort to make God redundant. Shrinking a God of the Gaps is merely a side effect of it, not the main motivation in any way.

What is your position? Does God control mutations? Are mutations simply random (i.e. uncaused)?

Everything in the universe happens at God's agreement, so in some way he causes or at least tolerates the mutations. If He is directly involved right now or if He just set up things in a way so that they work out correctly at some time in the past and no direct involvement is required anymore i do not know, i have no opinion on that.

So, why don't you say so? Anytime you say anything about what you believe or who you are, why don't you prefix it with "theistic?"

Because that'd be unpractical; that prefix would be useless information. Theistic XYZ differs from XYZ on purely philosophical or theological grounds, that's irrelevant to very most hard science debates about the respective subject.

If you empirically studies any species over time, it would either remain (fuzzy) at a fixed point or it would degenerate over time. It would not evolve.

So what exactly would you consider evolution? Please give a specific example.

The Theory of Evolution is an hypothesis about what happens and has happened. It's only an hypothesis (or theory) because it is not observed. It's a refuted hypothesis because it isn't observed even when we're looking where we should see it.

Well...what should we see then? Please give an example so that we have a fixed goal.
What about genetic evidence which conclusively demonstrates common descent of humans and other contemporary apes?

 

[R7-12]

Hi everyone,

I started reading this thread and realized most of it is beyond my ability to respond to intelligently, but thought some of you might be interested in taking a shot at reading this,

Creation: From Anthropomorphic Theology to Theomorphic Anthropology (No. B5)

Categories include:

Causation and Singularities
Metaphysical Aspects of Science and Matter
The Direction of Time
Activism and Law as a Mechanism
Philosophical Aspects of Evolution
The Mechanics of Human Spirituality
A Tentative Explanation of the Mind

- Just to name a few.

Apparently it was someone's thesis for their Masters.

I hope you find it enlightenling,
R7-12

 

[Poke]

Do you mean the phylogenic tree by this; as opposed to "change in frequency of allele"?

Would you call it a theory that alleles change in frequency? Then why do you ask such a question?

I'm talking about such things as the Big Bang and Abiogenesis, as well as Darwinism.

[quote:46f60][quote:46f60]Even if this assumption is denied, it cannot be denied that God is not part of the model of Evolution.

Just like atomic theory is not part of it. Evolution doesn't care what causes the mutations which drive it, just like it doesn't care about how atoms are formed. This is simply outside of its scope.

You agree with me. So, why does the tone of your response look so much like you're trying to disagree?

In the 150 years since Darwin we have found plenty of transitionals.
What exactly are you looking for when you ask for one? I'd like to fix the goalposts before i show you examples.

No, you're the one moving the goal post. Bladed-truth claimed that evolution was developed by scientists trying to explain the fossil record. I was merely proving that he has it backwards. Evolution came before the evidence. You still don't have the evidence.

Life exists. Evidence indicates that in the past it was very different. Evolution explains those changes. How life got here is irrelevant for that, it doesn't make the evidence for the different past go away.

Yes, the past is different. The dinosaurs, the trilobites, and the dodo are dead. Extinction, devolution explains that, not Evolution.

Today things like plane wings are designed using evolutionary algorithms...

I guess that means Boeing can fire the aeronautics engineers and replace them with evolutionary biologists.

And no, it's not an effort to make God redundant. Shrinking a God of the Gaps is merely a side effect of it, not the main motivation in any way.

Remember, it's Theistic Evolutionists, not Creationists, who worship a god of gaps.

Evolutionary fields are dominated by atheists. Do you think that's just a coincidence?

Because that'd be unpractical; that prefix would be useless information. Theistic XYZ differs from XYZ on purely philosophical or theological grounds, that's irrelevant to very most hard science debates about the respective subject.

What makes it practical to prefix "evolution" with "theist"? It looks like you're suggesting that evolution isn't hard science.

Well...what should we see then? Please give an example so that we have a fixed goal.
What about genetic evidence which conclusively demonstrates common descent of humans and other contemporary apes?

[/quote:46f60][/quote:46f60]

There's a difference between applying your imagination to circumstantial evidence and actually seeing something. If life were evolving, you wouldn't waste time pointing to alleged genetic evidence. You'd be pointing to actual events.

 

[jwu]

Would you call it a theory that alleles change in frequency? Then why do you ask such a question?

I'm talking about such things as the Big Bang and Abiogenesis, as well as Darwinism.

Because that and nothing else is the theory of evolution. The big bang and abiogenesis have nothing to do with it. Life exists and the universe exists. Evolution doesn't care how they got here. It only explains the diversity of life and its development from the first life. If that was poofed into existence by a deity, sneezed out by a giant ether turtle or developed by the big bang and abiogenesis doesn't matter to the theory of evolution.

You agree with me. So, why does the tone of your response look so much like you're trying to disagree?

I agree only insofar as that no deity is explicitly mentioned in the theory of evolution. That does not mean that an involvement is denied. Evolution makes no statement about what exactly drives the mutations which drive it. Hence i disagree with you.

No, you're the one moving the goal post. Bladed-truth claimed that evolution was developed by scientists trying to explain the fossil record. I was merely proving that he has it backwards. Evolution came before the evidence. You still don't have the evidence.

How does this consititute a move of the goalposts?

The theory of evolution was proposed to explain the diversity of life. The diversity of past life obviously is part of this, but explaining the fossil record itself is only a secondary issue. However, the fossil record conclusively supports evolution. There are many lines of nice transitionals and everything fits into the phylogenic tree.

So what exactly are you looking for when you ask for transitionals?

Yes, the past is different. The dinosaurs, the trilobites, and the dodo are dead. Extinction, devolution explains that, not Evolution.

There is no such thing as devolution.

I guess that means Boeing can fire the aeronautics engineers and replace them with evolutionary biologists.

Well, they do have mathematicians and computer scientists who use evolutionary algorithms for exactly that purpose. An attempt to ridicule it won't make them go away.

Remember, it's Theistic Evolutionists, not Creationists, who worship a god of gaps.

I don't worship a god of the gaps, but i am a theistic evolutionist.

Evolutionary fields are dominated by atheists. Do you think that's just a coincidence?

There surely are many atheists - but not all of them are. By the way, the majority of Christians worldwide are theistic evolutionists.

What makes it practical to prefix "evolution" with "theist"? It looks like you're suggesting that evolution isn't hard science.

Please don't put words into my mouth. Theistic evolution is a philosophical/theological extension of evolution. Since the involvement of deities is outside the realm of science, that indeed is not a scientific theory in this form. Its core of evolution however is.

There's a difference between applying your imagination to circumstantial evidence and actually seeing something. If life were evolving, you wouldn't waste time pointing to alleged genetic evidence. You'd be pointing to actual events.

Oh, i will point to those events once you've pinned down a definition of what qualifies as evolution. I just happen to have seen the goalposts grow legs way too often. So, why don't you simply give me a description of what qualifies as evolution? If you're right, then you have nothing to lose.

And besides, the genetic evidence alone already is stron enough anyway. But that's not nearly all there is. The emergence of new species and even new genera has been observed directly, as well as recent evolutionary developments in us humans.

 

[Poke]

Because that and nothing else is the theory of evolution.

How can we have a productive conversation when you insist on a silly and irrelevant definition of Evolution?

I agree only insofar as that no deity is explicitly mentioned in the theory of evolution. That does not mean that an involvement is denied.

In my original post, I already addressed that argument. So, why are you responding to my statements as if you haven't read them?

The theory of evolution was proposed to explain the diversity of life.

That's correct. Evolution wasn't proposed to explain evidence, it was proposed as an atheistic explanation of the diversity of life.

However, the fossil record conclusively supports evolution. There are many lines of nice transitionals and everything fits into the phylogenic tree.

No so.

So what exactly are you looking for when you ask for transitionals?[/qoute]

Name one, your best one. How do you know that is a transitional when the platypus isn't a transitional between mammals and birds?

[quote:504c6]There is no such thing as devolution.

It's the law of nature.

I don't worship a god of the gaps, but i am a theistic evolutionist.

Yes, you strike me more as a pantheist than a gapper.

By the way, the majority of Christians worldwide are theistic evolutionists.

Yes, and the Episcopal church is a Christian denomination.

Please don't put words into my mouth.

I don't put words into your mouth. You said the theist prefix is "irrelevant to very most hard science debates about the respective subject." That implies that evolution isn't a hard science because you use the theist prefix with evolution. But, now I understand that you mean the theological extension of evolution...

So, why don't you simply give me a description of what qualifies as evolution? If you're right, then you have nothing to lose.

Document the transition of a chimp into a human through natural selection and mutation. I understand that this would take to long or maybe not happen at all. So, feel free to identify any emperical example of anything else that would meet Darwin's definition of Darwinism.

The emergence of new species and even new genera has been observed directly, as well as recent evolutionary developments in us humans.

[/quote:504c6]

Mere speciation has nothing to do with Evolution. Read Darwin's Origin of Species for the correct definition of Darwinism.

 

[moniker]

Because that and nothing else is the theory of evolution.

How can we have a productive conversation when you insist on a silly and irrelevant definition of Evolution?

Then how do you define evolution?

 

[jwu]

How can we have a productive conversation when you insist on a silly and irrelevant definition of Evolution?

It happens to be the officially accepted definition.

In my original post, I already addressed that argument. So, why are you responding to my statements as if you haven't read them?

You merely asserted that that is so, without backing up the reasoning.

Gravity isn't part of the theory of evolution either, does that mean that evolution denies gravity? I don't think so. Same with God.

That's correct. Evolution wasn't proposed to explain evidence, it was proposed as an atheistic explanation of the diversity of life.

The ToE fits the evidence and explains it. The evidence being the diversity of life, genetics and the fossil record. It's exceptionally successful at that.

No so.

What doesn't? Please give specifics.

Name one, your best one. How do you know that is a transitional when the platypus isn't a transitional between mammals and birds?

Why don't you fix the goalposts first?
Would you be fine with this one:
"Transitionals are species which exhibit characteristic traits of different clades"?

By the way...the platypus is the descendant of a transitional (and still exhibits many of the shared characteristics) between reptiles and mammals, not mammals and birds.

It's the law of nature.

Specifics?

Yes, you strike me more as a pantheist than a gapper.

I do not reject the idea of God tinkering with ongoing evolution through quantum processes, so i don't fit that category either. Could it be that *gasp* the list of categories was incomplete?

Yes, and the Episcopal church is a Christian denomination.

I'm not familiar with them, so i don't see your point.

Document the transition of a chimp into a human through natural selection and mutation. I understand that this would take to long or maybe not happen at all. So, feel free to identify any emperical example of anything else that would meet Darwin's definition of Darwinism.

Since humans didn't evolve from chimps but merely share a common ancestor with them you're asking me for something that evolution doesn't claim to be the case.

So, feel free to identify any emperical example of anything else that would meet Darwin's definition of Darwinism.

Could you post that definition here? According to my books speciation is well considered evolution by Darwin.

Mere speciation has nothing to do with Evolution. Read Darwin's Origin of Species for the correct definition of Darwinism.

Then what would qualify as evolution in your books? By the way...Darwinism is outdated, it's the Modern Synthesis or Neo-Darwinism nowadays.

And by the way...the title "Origin of Species" already is quite a hint that speciation - the emergence of new species - is pretty much part of it.

 

[Poke]

It happens to be the officially accepted definition.

That's a good example of why appeal-to-authority is a logical fallacy.

Gravity isn't part of the theory of evolution either, does that mean that evolution denies gravity? I don't think so. Same with God.

But, you agree with me that Evolution doens't include God.

The ToE fits the evidence and explains it. The evidence being the diversity of life, genetics and the fossil record. It's exceptionally successful at that.

How do you measure success?

Please give specifics.

How many individual fossils do you think have been identified? What percentage of them do you think are considered candidates to be transitional forms between decisively different species?

By the way...the platypus is the descendant of a transitional (and still exhibits many of the shared characteristics) between reptiles and mammals, not mammals and birds.

I asked how do you know it's not a transitional between mammals and birds. Your answer apparently is because its odd features are reptilian rather than avian. Suppose all you had was an old fossil chiseled out of a rock, how would you know these features are reptilian rather than avian?

[quote:40322]It's the law of nature.

Specifics?[/quote:40322]

Genetic loads and loss of diversity accumulate over time.

I do not reject the idea of God tinkering with ongoing evolution through quantum processes, so i don't fit that category either. Could it be that *gasp* the list of categories was incomplete?

What makes you think God is doing anything at the quantum level?

[/quote]Since humans didn't evolve from chimps but merely share a common ancestor with them you're asking me for something that evolution doesn't claim to be the case.[/quote]

I didn't say humans evolved from chimps. I want a documented example of humans evolving from chimps. And before you reply, I already address your concerns about providing this example.

[quote:40322]So, feel free to identify any emperical example of anything else that would meet Darwin's definition of Darwinism.

Could you post that definition here? According to my books speciation is well considered evolution by Darwin.[/quote:40322]

I gave an example, a human from a chimp. But, how about any documented example of 100 mutations constructively contributing to any one function. How about just 10 mutations? Five? How about just two clear mutations that clearly constructively contribute to the same function? I don't believe Evolution, but I think you ought to be able to find a few such examples.

Then what would qualify as evolution in your books? By the way...Darwinism is outdated, it's the Modern Synthesis or Neo-Darwinism nowadays.

Darwin's idea of evolution is not at all outdated. It's not his fault that the evidence is so non-existent that modern Evolutionists have turned Evolution into a straw-man of what it really is.

And by the way...the title "Origin of Species" already is quite a hint that speciation - the emergence of new species - is pretty much part of it.

Darwin explicitly was talking about new forms, not anything so totally irrelevant as what modern Evolutionists call speciation.