Theistic Evolution

by cofty 195 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  binadub

  Cofty:

  I don't usually spend this much time on the forum, but stopped by again because I thought you might have made a reply. Thanks.

  Are you familiar with the terms "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity". You should also research the phrase "wedge strategy".

  Yes, as well as the rebuttals. They actually appear in some of the links I posted above.
  I am a little rusty on "wedge strategy" so I'll review that again awaiting what you will present.

  [Stephen Meyer's video] it is not impressive.

  Hopefully you'll do better than that. Any rebuttals to the science he presented?

  I promise I will find time to respond to your support of ID later.

  Please do not confuse the issue here. The issue is NOT whether I support ID or not. The issue is whether ID is Christian-Bible-based-Genesis-Young-Earth-Creationism. It is not. You say you can prove that it is. That's what I want to see. It's immaterial whether I agree with ID or not. I can guarantee you I do not agree with the "Creationists."

  Evidently some YECs have made contributions to DI. That does not prove they are Creationists any more than TeaPartyers contributing to Mitt Romney proves he is an Evangelical. What I want to see from you is evidence that the DI--the institute's objective (not individuals who may support it)--is about religion, in particular Christian, and not about science.

  You will be able to show that ID is not atheist--that is true. ID simply believes that creation is directed by some kind of superior intelligence.

  ~Binadub
• 

  botchtowersociety

  Wrong!!! Without Questions there would be no Science! Coming to unfounded conclusions stifles science

  Well, since you screamed "wrong," and put lots of exclamation marks after it, you must be right.

  Look, science is built on scientifically unprovable premises. Maybe you should study a little philosophy, such as the epistemology and philosophy of science.
• 

  cantleave

  BTS - I think you have missed the critical word in both my posts -"Conclusion"!

  Philosophical questions are, I agree, one of the precursors of scientific discovery.

  Coming to a false conclusion (theistic evolution being one of these), and then taking an intransigent stance on those conclusions, is what stifles progress.
• 

  cofty

  I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute.

  Theistic evolution is fully commited to methodological naturalism and the scientific method. Scientists like Collins and Miller have shown it does not impede discovery.

  God becomes the ultimate cause and source of everything - he is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing but the scientific search for abiogenesis and cosmic origins goes on regardless.

  Its a intellectually honest position IMO but I sketched my problems with it in my OP.
• 

  NewChapter

  I suppose it is an honest position---there is no way to disprove it. In the end, I choose not to believe it because there is no evidence. Others choose to believe it because it cannot be disproven. As long as the knowledge goes forward and is not hindered, it really doesn't make a difference to me.
• 

  King Solomon

  It's certainly not a contribution to science, and probably only allows some scientists to relieve dissonance that results from wanting to hold conflicting belief systems (or, as a means to ease their guilt after being looked at as at traitor by the non-science fellow worshipers when they enter church on Sundays). It's pointless, beyond that, as it's merely kicking the can further down the road; "God(s)" loses more territory as time proceeds....
• 

  binadub

  What is the difference between "theistic evolution" and neo-Darwinian evolution?

  ~Binadub
• 

  cofty

  There isn't any difference.

  Evolution explains how the diversity of life arose from a common ancestor through natural unguided processes. neo-Darwinian refers to the method of evolution, gradual change by mutation and natural selection and includes the modern field of genetics that was unavailable to Darwin.

  People who hold to theistic evolution accept all of that without reservation but with the addition of belief in a god that is the ultimate source of everything. They do not ever take refuge in supernatural explantions.

  In contrast Intelligent Design contributes nothing to science. It is a parastitic enterprise that tries to squeeze god into gaps in scientific knowledge.

  ID is a broad church incorporating young earth creationists, old earth creationists and hybrid theories that teach evolution but insist on inserting god to explain all the really complex stuff.
• 

  bohm

  BTS:

  I think the statement: "science is based on philosophy" does not say very much.

  For instance, consider the statement: "Medicine is based on quantum field theory". Its true, you know, medicine is based on biology which is based on biochemistry which is based on chemistry which is based on how atoms behave and interact which is based on quantum field theory.

  But it has absolutely nothing to do with how people research or practice medicine; no significant result in medicine depend on quantum field theory and no new discovery in medicine has come about by pondering quantum field theory.

  So i really think it is stretching the "depends" a bit to much; I would much rather learn about how philosophy can be used in a meaningfull way to get better science. What solid result in philosophy should we use? how?

  Look, science is built on scientifically unprovable premises.

  So if science build on premises which cannot be proven using science, i suppose we must demand philosophy does not suffer from a similar problem. So where can i find the book which proove the premises of philosophy using philosophy? I would like to know the name of the philosopher who hammered that conclusion out beyond dispute.
• 

  binadub

  Cofty:

  There isn't any difference.

  Thank you. That's my observation too. Glad we agree on that.

  In contrast Intelligent Design contributes nothing to science. It is a parastitic enterprise that tries to squeeze god into gaps in scientific knowledge.

  ID is a broad church incorporating young earth creationists, old earth creationists and hybrid theories that teach evolution but insist on inserting god to explain all the really complex stuff.

  Well I wasn't going to bring up ID again in your "theist evolution" thread, but since you did, I think you have already expressed that opinion and I disagreed with it. I presented some links to DI's own definition of what they are about, and you promised to present proof that they are liars. I was going to let it go, but since you brought it up again, where is the proof that they are liars? It's not very academic to just call them liars on your say-so. Like I said, that's what JWs do to us 'apostates.'

  I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just think you should back up your claim since it is quite denigrating about some people with impressive academic and scientific credentials. Fwiw, I happen to disagree with the DI folks that ID should be taught in schools for exactly the same reason I believe atheism should not be taught in schools, but I do think the science they present should be included strictly on its own scientific merits. I am definitely not what has been popularly termed a "creationist." I am also a far cry from agreement with evangelical scientists like Collins on their religion. I was in agreement with you that I cannot see how they can reconcile evangelical religion and a "personal god" with evolution.

  As you can see, I don't post much here (259th post in over 10 years). So you may have already said before, but considering this kind of topic, I'm curious what your degree is in?

  Peace,
  ~Binadub