Theistic Evol vs ID vs Hindu religion

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by BobRyan, Jun 27, 2006.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Some have started using the "Misquote" thread as a place to discuss the belief in Theistic Evolutionism - so I am starting this thread to see what interest there is in that belief.

    #1. Does your belief in Theistic Evol accept or reject ID?
    #2. Can a Hindu also be "your kind" of Theistic Evolutionist?
    #3. Do you accept the teaching of Romans 1 that even pagans clearly "see" the I.D. aspects of God "in what has been made".
    #4. Does your faith in Theistic Evolutionism cause you to seek excuse after excuse to reject Robert Gentry's scientific study on Palonium radio halos rather than objectively and openly accepting and studying the science first - and then coming to conlusions after getting actually reading Robert's own material and and rebuttal to those atheist darwinists that rightly object in devotion to their own faith and orthodoxy?
    #5. Does it "matter" whether God really created mankind perfect, sinless, and in paradise of perfection - or just let mud evolve through carnage and disease until mankind groped it's way out of a cave - to then be condemned to hell?

    This is a discussion of philosophy, methods, and what you choose to "believe" if you accept theistic evolutionism.
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Question 5 above would likely be finished by the atheist darwinist as "unitl mankind groped and clawed his way out of the cave to then invent computers and space travel" -- admittedly.
     
  3. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not sure I entirely follow you here, but I'll play along for now.

    Both.

    When you say "theistic evolution" you imply a system where God used well designed natural systems to achieve His will and I think that this includes the possibility of intervention. I think that recognizing that these systems are ideal for accomplishing His will and by leaving open the possibility of intervention that you accept the general ideas behing ID. ******

    The specific ideas that what we call IDists have put forward thus far, I reject for lack of evidence. For example, Behe advocates for irreducible complexity with the argument that certain systems could not have evolved. The problem is that he is forced to ignore methods such as scaffolding and co-option in general and he is specifically forced to ignore papers that propose specific paths for things to have evolved which he calls IC.

    No. Why would you think so?

    I do not know what their creation myth entails and I don't know what they think of evolution. But whatever their opinions may be, I can be sure that they do not accept God and thus cannot share my "kind" of opinion.

    I believe I answered this in my response to the first question.

    I have read enough of Gentry and the responses to him and his responses back to be sick of the whole matter. And I doubt that many of the responses were by "atheist darwinists." I imagine some were Christian and some were not. I imagine most were by persons in the physical sciences and not biological. I doubt that they were all by non-Christian biologists as you imply by your phrasing.

    Even AIG, if they haven't removed it, had a page in which they claimed to have found halos in rocks that they say formed post flood. So I guess YEers only take halos to be proof of instantaneous rock formation in rocks that they want to be instantly formed and reject those halos that interfere with their presuppositions.

    If anyone is interested in halos, you can find weeks worth of reading if you want, Google is your friend. The explanations quickly turn very complicated and very hard to follow if you are not a phycisists or geologists. In the ultimate analysis, many people who are phycisists and geologists have examined the claims and found them to be wanting.

    A simple to understand way to look at it without getting into the details might be this. All of the rocks in question show other signs of how they were formed that are at odds with Gentry's assertions. Do you find it more likely that all these other signs about the way the rocks formed are wrong or that Gentry's sole indication, at odds with the rest of geology, is wrong?

    I think that your phrasing of the question falls into the fallacy of poisoning the well, but to get at the essence of your question, no. We are sinfull and in need of grace. The only way it "matters" is if you try and force an interpretation on the Bible which is at odds with reality. If you are willing to build that strawman, then you will have no trouble knocking it over.

    ****** What I really want to know is why YEers are so willing to get in bed with IDers but not TE. There is a great gulf between most IDers and YEers and only a hairs difference between ID and TE.

    Many of the leading IDers, Behe and Dembski just to name drop a couple, have no problem with common descent including humans. This is a huge difference of opinion with YEers. Why would you, as a YEer, want to have anything to do with a group that largely accepts man's descent from microbes and that accepts that ancient age of the earth?

    In my opinion there is only a subtle difference between my opinions and those of many IDers. I accept that God may have intervened in places where required to fulfill His will but I have yet to see any specific cases that would have required such intervention. IDers claim some specific cases in which they assert it was necessary for God to have intervened. For me to move from TE to ID would only require one case that I accepted that required supernatural intervention and woud be only a small shuffle of a step.

    To get to ID from YE would be to drop adherence to the fundemental aspects of YE and would be a huge, huge step.

    So why is it that YEers draw such a stark line between ID and TE? In reality that line is diffuse and hard to find.

    (And yes I know that there are also some IDers who are also YE, but it does not seem to be a central tenet of ID in general.)
     
  4. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Theistic evolution is an oxymoron. If you believe in God, you should believe in His account of creation, not Darwin's.
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    ID evolutionist appear to make the same claim that Paul makes in Romans 1 that "even PAGANS" can clearly SEE the ID attributes of God "in what has been made".

    That kind of "evolutionism" is totally anathema to the cult of "belief" atheist darwinism. No atheist could possibly accept it. No "believer" in the atheist's darwinist model could either!

    The premise of IC is that you can not take life "down to the molecule" and get natural sciences to account for every step - at some point - you need a "designer" - in fact "CLEARLY SEEN" by PAGANS even - "IN what has been made". This is totally unnacceptable to the atheist darwinist and to those who choose a to believe as does that cult..

    All completely agree on this point.

    Those who accept IC do not go for the "storytelling" of "ideas" proposed but never proven coming out of the Atheist Darwinist camp and designed to "omit" the need for a designer in "what has been made".


    As already stated.


    Quote:
    Can a Hindu also be "your kind" of Theistic Evolutionist?
    #1. They embrace evolutionism fully as you do.

    #2. You have already rejected in your statement above every avenue for "God in creation" as anything but "apparent" or "needed" for any step. This IS the atheist darwinist starting point and as it is non-negotiable for them - it is non-negotiable for all who join their cult.
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    You really do not have a clue here UTEOTW though I have pointed this answer out to you many times in the past! (No clue in your case just as when I repeated exposed your own bogus INSERT that evolutionists that expose flaws in evolutionism's history are all claimed to be CREATIONISTS by Bible believing christians) -- but you do not appear to read with comprehension when objective open minded thought is required.

    The point of ID is that the PAGAN's view (as we see defined in Romans 1) is the minimum starting point for all humans. It is NOT the GOAL Bible believing Christians! Bible believing Christians COULD NOT reduce Genesis 1-2:3 to JUST the PAGAN's ID model. But they CAN see how EVEN PAGANS would get that very BASIC level of truth and obvious fact "KNOWN".

    THE ONLY people with an EXCUSE for rejecting that level of basic knowledge - are atheists because it is the lowest possible level of "truth" that STILL requires confession that God "EXISTS" to "see" what Romans 1 says PAGANS can "clearly SEE in what HAS BEEN MADE". Atheists COULD NOT negotiate on this point so EVEN if they have to "tell stories that have not been PROVEN" to get around the obvious - that is all they have left. That is why THEY START out rejecting ID even BEFORE they come up with some of the "story telling" to solve the problem! "Obviously".

    This is so incredibly obvious it surprises me that you keep asking to have it explained.

    At some point this DOES make your argument that Hindu evolutionists could NOT be your kind of evolutionist - because "your kind" required the atheist darwinist perspective NOT a theistic Hindu view of evolution.

    In that one area - you do make your case well.
     
    #6 BobRyan, Jun 28, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2006
  7. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    For some strange reason I am going to go down the path of trying to get you to answer a simple question again. I wonder how many pages this will take.

    Can you give us your own answer to your own first question? Tell us if you accept or reject ID? Do you think that folks like Behe and Wells and Dembski and all the rest are on the right path or are they on the wrong path?

    Let us know what you think of ID yourself.
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I am happy to highlight any section that did not appear to be clear - just let me know which one.
     
  9. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here we go...

    None of it is clear to me.

    I am just asking for a simple statement declaring what you think of mainstream IDist as they exist today. Do you think they are on the right path? Do you think their work is flawed in some way? Do you think that Christians should or should not be supporting their work? Why or why not? What should they be doing different?

    Your phrasing of your first question seemed to indicate that you were criticizing TE for not embracing ID. Do you embrace ID as it exists today?
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Bob just said -
    The point of ID is that the PAGAN's view (as we see defined in Romans 1) is the minimum starting point for all humans. It is NOT the GOAL for Bible believing Christians!

    Bible believing Christians COULD NOT reduce Genesis 1-2:3 to JUST the PAGAN's ID model. But they CAN see how EVEN PAGANS would get that very BASIC level of truth and obvious fact "KNOWN".


    It is a matter of "superset vs subset" UTEOTW --
     
  11. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a very simple question.

    Can you either say something like "Yeah, those IDist are really out there doing God's work and I fully support their efforts."

    Or something like "Those dirty, rotten IDers. They are little better than folks who accept TE. You need a program guide to tell those two groups apart."

    Or something in between. This really is not that hard. All I want is an unambiguous statement of what you think of ID as it currently exists and works.
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Perhaps you would do better to take that obvious and easy to-read quote from me - show what part is confusing to you?

    Is the term "pagan" Unclear?

    Is the Text of Romans 1 unclear? You know where I point out "The invisible ATTRIBUTES OF GOD are CLEARLY SEEN IN what HAS BEEN MADE"?

    Is it unclear to you how it is that ID is in any way highlighting some "Attribute of God" as IF it was "being CLEARLY SEEN IN NATURE" even by unblieving "pagans" (a fact that God claims to be true for UNBELIEVERS in Romans 1)

    Is it unclear to you that "pagans" are not Bible believing Christians?

    What part of "superset vs subset" in my previous post was confusing when it comes to "understanding" how the Christian view that accepts Genesis would view ID as "the minimalist position" -- the LCD, the "least fact" minimum that one could reasonably expect that all mankind might just "get"?

    My argument is clearly "and repeatedly" that the concept of "intellience SEEN in the THINGS that have been made" is the LEAST common ground between the unbelieving pagan and the Bible believing Christian.

    My argument is that the ID guys are merely making a case for the LOWEST point of common reference possible for our species between believers and unbelievers.

    As I have stated "reaching out to achieve the lowest level of understanding regarding What Has Been Made" is not the "goal" of the Christian - rather it is a fact for all humanity that the Christian can use to guide the unbeliever to greater light, truth and science fact.

    So when I see those IDers making their case for this LOWEST common factual ground of understanding common to both believers and unbelievers (according to God anway) then I applaud their efforts to raise the bar for the Atheists.
     
  13. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I still do not know what you are talking about. I have stated this several times and you merely repeat yourself. There is nothing to highlight for you because I see nowhere in which you come close to answering what I want.

    Some sentences sound like you strongly disagree with ID. Some sound like you strongly agree with ID. I still don't know what your full opinion of ID is.

    Instead of continuously repeating yourself with posts full of random quote marks and capitalizations, can you not dumb it down a bit and just answer my question in simple terms. It really is easy to do.

    Do you think the IDers are the greatest thing since sliced bread? Are they fatally flawed? Something in between.

    For once again, I must say that I cannot follow your ramblings and would instead like a simple, concise answer.
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    There we see an example of 3 short easy to understand easy to read sentences that UTEOTW claims he can not understand.

    UTEOTW I have shortened the response to these 3 short sentences and yet you still ask that it be "dumbed down" some more.

    I THEN ask what part of the short - tiny - pointed - direct post could POSSIBLY have escaped you -- and you do not respond to a SINGLE QUESTION asking you to point to the word that you find so confusing.

    So I now I will go out to the rest of the board and ask if there is something they can suggest for using simpler words, ...

    Back in a few...
     
  15. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not asking anything about some "pagan's ID model."

    I am asking what you think of the work of people like Wells and Behe. Good? No good? What?

    How many times do I have to say that I have no idea from your multi-repeats what you think of regular old ID?

    It's like I am a foriegner who doesn't speak English and you think I'll understand if you say it enough times and loudly enough. Well I don't get it.

    I have told you I don't get it and you just repeat what I have said I don't get. Could you please respond with some other combination of words?

    I have even given you examples of the kind of response for which I am looking. Any chance that I'll get a straight answer?
     
  16. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fishing expedition?

    What you write, sounds like you are fishing for Bob to give you the answers that you want him to say. I cannot read your mind - and I doubt that Bob can either.

    But, my guess would be that he does not care what anyone defines as ID. He does not care what Behe defines as ID. Personally, I have not read him and do not have time to do so.

    I know that I do not care what any of them say. I personally believe that God revealed the most accurate description of Creation ever written.

    I think that stating that God used ID in His Creation does not limit us to any ONE's personal theory(ies). IMHO. I think that Bob and I and the account in Genesis are in 99.999999% agreement. Where we disagree - God was right in Genesis - we just don't have His knowledge.
     
  17. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah I am fishing.

    And I was very explicit in my first post on this thread for what I am fishing.

    YEers like to pretend that there is scant difference between their opinion and those of IDers. YEers frequently bring ID arguments to the plate. YEers rarely if ever act like they have any problem with ID.

    But, from my point of view, it is ID and TE that have scant difference between them and YE and ID have a great gulf between them.

    The way I put it was this. Many in ID accept common descent. Those in TE and those in ID both accept that GOd may have intervened in the process. The one difference being that IDers think they have found a few necessary places to intervene and most TEers, speaking for myself really, have not yet found anywhere they they think intervention was likely.

    I don't know why you see YEers constantly railing against TE and going along with ID like they are one and the same with YE. They are not. They are hardly distinguishable from TE.

    So I'd either like to see the same courtesy, or benefit of the doubt, extended to TEers as is extended to ID. Or if you really cannot accept common descent, then I'd like to see ID quit being given a seemingly free pass and recognized for what it really is. For I see little difference between ID and TE.

    And since Bob made a point that his first question is about ID, I'd like him to answer his own question and tell us straight up if he accepts ID.
     
  18. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I saw a DVD where he specifically addresses at least one of those proposed paths. He doesn't say that it is impossible that I recall... simply like I have said before... he indicated that it was so unlikely as to be unreasonable.
     
  19. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, and at the Dover trial, he was presented with 58 articles decribing just the evolution of the immune system. Most of these he admitted to not having read but he was still confident enough to dismiss them all a priori.

    The reason he dismisses them is that he is constantly shifting the goalposts. He was how he phrased it himself under cross examination. "Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions."

    Most people quote IC to say that some things could not have evolved. If there is a possible pathway, then it is no longer impossible, no matter how small you may think the odds are.
     
  20. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is what Behe says on the matter of common descent.

    This is from Darwin's Black Box.
     

Share This Page

Loading...