Does Theistic Evolution Honor and Glorify God.

[Vambram]

@Diamond7

Please go back and re-read my post to which you responded with those facts about plants and micro-evolution. I know that micro-evolution does indeed happen. However, what the evolutionists try to get people to believe is something that is more accurately called macro-evolution.

 

[Vambram]

Are you trying to say that science can not stand up in a court of law? You do not have much faith in the legal system.

I don't trust an unbeliever in a court of law. Human judges are notorious for allowing their own beliefs and/or worldview as well as biases affect their decisions.

 

[BobRyan]

Are you trying to say that science can not stand up in a court of law?

Depends on whether a non-science lawyer-judge is better qualified to know what a science theory is or is not - or whether you trust a PhD BioChemist that has done the research to know a thing or two on the subject.

From: Michael Behe - Wikipedia

“Behe ... graduated from Drexel University in Philadelphia in 1974 with a BS in chemistry. He received his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease.

“From 1978 to 1982, he did postdoctoral work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982 to 1985, he was assistant professor of chemistry at Queens College in New York City …. In 1985, he moved to Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, where he is currently a professor of biochemistry.

By contrast that judge had "zip, nadda, zero" background in biochem, no masters of science , no PhD in science of any kind.

You do not have much faith in the legal system.

I have faith that political pressure of all sorts can be brought to bear in the case of a trial. Such that a zero-science-background judge could be maneuvered into claiming he knew a thing or two about science, ID, biochem, and that he thought extreme censorship against the students right "to know that a book exists in the library" --- was there right level of thought control for America.

I like your idea of "blaming someone else" for the judges poor decision - as a way to deflect. At least it argues that the one who actually knew something in this trial was Behe -- not the judge.

============================ extreme censorship promoted

Decision to ban a 4 paragraph intro to a science class devoted to blind faith evolutionism, which made these 4 claims.

1. The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students
to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and
eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution
is a part.

2. Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be
tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not
a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no
evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation
that unifies a broad range of observations.

3. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life
that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, "Of
Pandas and People", is available in the Library for students who might
be interested in gaining an understanding of what
Intelligent Design actually involves.

4. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to
keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of
the Origins of Life to individual students and their
families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction
focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency
on Standards-based assessments.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
Do I need to "claim to have all wisdom and knowledge" to read "Do not take God's name in vain"

I do not understand what your point is. You could not be accusing me because as a Christian we are not to accuse our brethren and it is a violation of the terms of service for this web site. We can only judge ourselves. So are you judging yourself?

What my post is about - is reading comprehension. The rules of this TOS allow me to admit to basic reading comprehension when I make statements about myself.

I am talking about the ability to read a simple statement of text - without first having to have - infinite knowledge (since that is the direction you chose to ask about in your post to me)

The fact that this basic point is something you are now saying you do not understand -- comes as a bit of a surprise to me.

 

[BobRyan]

'Theistic evolution' if you think about it, its just slowed down 'intelligent design'.

That is placing a very positive optimistic view of it as the suggested way to affirm TE. And frankly I would have a different view of it IF the TE guys were not so bent on denying the most basic, most fundamental form of ID known to mankind -- the idea that our Creator has so much intelligence that His WORK shows Him to be "intelligent" - and in fact an "Intelligent designer".

To be clear -- ID does not say "God is an intelligent designer"
Rather ID says - if you "look at things around us - they appear to have been designed by something/someone with intelligence".

By contrast Rom1 says that even pagans and atheists can look at "the things that have been made" in nature by God and discern "the invisible attributes of God"

The war against ID waged by even TE's shows that they are shooting for a level of admitting-to-the-obvious that is BELOW the Level that God says all HUMANS have in Romans 1. I think they shoot themselves in the foot when they do that because that short-sighted maneuver blocks even your own optimistic take on TE in your post above, from applying to what they are doing.

Following the non-Christian atheists down that rabbit hole leads to extreme censorship described here - #36

TE's trying to placate their atheist evol associates should be wise enough NOT to follow them down that particular rabbit hole. I would prefer a much more balanced, wise, and less shoot-yourself-in-foot form of TE when it is promoted by Christians.

 

[BobRyan]

The fact that a Christian or non-Christian living in America today would think that censorship of the glaringly obvious 4 points listed in this post #43 as they were proposed -- to be part of an intro-lecture to an all-evol all-the-time biology course for high school students -- is indeed "instructive" to the objective unbiased reader as it is an indicator of how societal grooming, molding permeates our culture despite our desire to retain critical thinking skills.

 

[Diamond7]

I like your idea of "blaming someone else" for the judges poor decision - as a way to deflect. At least it argues that the one who actually knew something in this trial was Behe -- not the judge.

The Bible says that God blinds their eyes and hardens their heart. John 12:40 I think this means He allows this to happen.

 

[Vambram]

The Bible says that God blinds their eyes and hardens their heart. John 12:40 I think this means He allows this to happen.

Agreed.
But that doesn't mean that the macro evolutionists are correct.

 

[Diamond7]

“Behe ... graduated from Drexel University in Philadelphia in 1974 with a BS in chemistry. He received his PhD in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978 for his dissertation research on sickle-cell disease.

I endorse Gerold Schroeder. He received his BSc in 1959, his MSc in 1961, and his PhD in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences in 1965, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Although he believes the universe is 14 billion years and I believe the universe is 13 billion years. I recently got a response from him for a email I sent. So we do communicate a bit from time to time.

Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Age of the Universe

I did support Francis Collins even until I discovered he gave us this recent pandemic. He said he retired from the NIH but I think Biden fired him. The whole thing has payola written all over it. Creation Science is questionable. It is as if their main pursuit is to sell books. I should write books now what we have AI to write for us.

 

[Vambram]

From a theological Philosophical and Biblical point of view, it is impossible for me to really believe that the universe is billions, or even millions, of years old.

 

[NBB]

Evolution is impossible, even theistic one, because we have a soul inside that works with the bodies,
animals too, the soul has functions to make the body work properly. Is not some spiritual smoke cloud.

And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. formed man..

 

[Diamond7]

From a theological Philosophical and Biblical point of view, it is impossible for me to really believe that the universe is billions, or even millions, of years old.

Not as impossible as trying to claim that Noah's literal flood was a world wide flood and not a local flood from our perspective. There was a world wide flood at the time of Pangea. We do find dinosaur remains in flood deposits.

An example of this are the 10,000 islands in the Pacific. I actually have been to the Philippines. We know that those islands have life that is unique to that island.

 

[Vambram]

Not as impossible as trying to claim that Noah's literal flood was a world wide flood and not a local flood from our perspective. There was a world wide flood at the time of Pangea. We do find dinosaur remains in flood deposits.

An example of this are the 10,000 islands in the Pacific. I actually have been to the Philippines. We know that those islands have life that is unique to that island.

I'm amazed that it appears that you don't believe that the Great Flood in Genesis 6 was not a literal world wide flood. Is there any other chapters in Genesis that you do not have a literal interpretation of those passages of Scripture?

It appears to me that you have allowed man's interpretation of science to influence your interpretation of the Book of Genesis..... and perhaps also other passages in the Bible making reference to Adam & Eve, as well as Noah.

 

[BobRyan]

I did support Francis Collins even until I discovered he gave us this recent pandemic. He said he retired from the NIH but I think Biden fired him. The whole thing has payola written all over it.

yep sounds fishy to me too.

Creation Science is questionable.

It is questioned by some - and I seriously question evolutionism as it appears to be more of a belief system than actual science.

But if someone were to ask me if high-school students "should be allowed to know if a book EXISTS in the library on evolution" I would never say "no by all means -- do not tell them that".

 

[Terri Dactyl]

Not as impossible as trying to claim that Noah's literal flood was a world wide flood and not a local flood from our perspective. There was a world wide flood at the time of Pangea. We do find dinosaur remains in flood deposits.

An example of this are the 10,000 islands in the Pacific. I actually have been to the Philippines. We know that those islands have life that is unique to that island.

If you don't believe parts of the Bible are true, how can you believe that any of it is true? So there was a world wide flood, but it wasn't Noah's?

 

[Diamond7]

If you don't believe parts of the Bible are true,

I believe that Science shows us that the Bible is 100% accurate and true.
God watches over His word and He watches over every word we speak.

James 3:1 Let not many of you be teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment. ...

 

[Vambram]

I believe that Science shows us that the Bible is 100% accurate and true.
God watches over His word and He watches over every word we speak.

James 3:1 Let not many of you be teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment. ...

I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are attempting to use science to help you interpret the Scriptures.

 

[Diamond7]

I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are attempting to use science to help you interpret the Scriptures.

Science has very little to do with most of the Bible. For the most part we use what we know from Science for a better understanding of Genesis chapter one. The rest of the Bible is mostly a history book for the last 6,000 years. Archelogy helps to confirm that what we read in our Bible is accurate and true.

 

[Vambram]

Science has very little to do with most of the Bible. For the most part we use what we know from Science for a better understanding of Genesis chapter one. The rest of the Bible is mostly a history book for the last 6,000 years. Archelogy helps to confirm that what we read in our Bible is accurate and true.

I agree that Archeology helps confirm the historical accuracy of Biblical events. However, when atheist, or agnostic, or even deist scientists attempt to interpret scientific evidence to fit within their own worldview, then I believe those scientists misinterpret the evidence. I do not believe it is a good idea to rely upon science for a better understanding of Genesis 1. Especially when we have multiple passages of Scriptures throughout the Bible talking about Creation, Adam & Eve, and Noah.

 

[Diamond7]

I do not believe it is a good idea to rely upon science for a better understanding of Genesis 1

God gives us BOTH, so He must have a reason for doing that. Esp. when it comes to fossils. After 200 million years there should be nothing. Yet we have almost the whole Skelton. In Montana they had so many bones they built a house out of them.

They talk about Fossil fuel. No one is doing anything other than trying to heat their home or put gas in their car. People just want to put money in their pocket. So whatever science we gain from that for us is free. Bought and paid for by standard oil company. They find a lot in coral reefs off shore. A lot of that supports evolutionary science but that is not their intent. Their intent is to make money.

Look at Darwin. His job was to map the world. But evolutionary theory came out of that. Then people come along and try to say the evidence does not support the Bible when the opposite is true. The natural evidence very much shows us how accurate and true our Bible is. If they want to say the evidence contradicts the Bible than prove it. Show me the contradictions. They try but they fail to come up with any evidence at all to show us the Bible is not true. But they do point out errors in translation and interpretation. Which leads ME to believe that God gives us Science to help us better understand our Bible. For some reason He wants us to know what He is doing.