Why is the concept of theistic evolution unacceptable to you?

My main problem with reconciling evolution and God is that the natural world is not objectively meaningful or purposeful. Evolution is not planned, or goal-oriented, as other users have said. It is a non-random process of selection based on largely random mutations and developments. The first sea creatures to set foot on solid ground dd not do so with the hopes of eventually leading to Humanity. Why would God create ants, or fleas, or amoebas? What's the point?

That being said, we are in a wonderful position. We may have arrived here through no particular plan, with no particular purpose, but we are here now. We are in the position to understand the natural world, and more importantly, to change it. To control it. To end the tyranny of nature, which is the tyranny of circumstance and insufficiency.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Rav,

That goes without saying.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't compramise ''theology'' which is simply the study of religion.

Christian fundamentalists are compramised without the need for evolution.
It doesn't compramise the vedas.

That depends if they believe it. I know ya'll gonna jump on the ''evolution is fact'' bandwagon, but that's not universally agreed, by laymen and proffessionals alike.
If it was a fact, as the song goes, there would be no contradiction.
Belief in God has nothing to do with origins of the universe, or whether or not evolution is a fact.
As I said, evolution doesn't benefit us in any spiritual, or meaningful way.

What do you mean by ''profound religious experience''?

I agree that science is the best way to understand such a reality, and I agree that it is good to know about the world we live in.
But I doubt that darwinian evolution is reality, and I'm not the only one.
The insistence on it being the only correct explanation alone, is suspicious, just like the
insistence that we needed to bomb innocent Iraqi's because one man has WMD's.
Most of us knew it was bullshit just by the information that was on the net (apart from out gut instinct), and we were right.

I think the public image of darwinism needs improvement.



jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

RedStar,

The soul goes through a transmigration process that starts from the most simplest creatures, right up to the highest ranking gods.
IOW, every single soul has gone through every type of body, innumerable times.

Every living being's body is exactly suitable to the consciousness of the soul that inhabits it.
So say if I die, and somehow my next incarnation I got the body of a dog. The reason for that would be that the level of my
consciousness would need that particular form to express myself through.

This is a microsm of the vedic explanation of the transmigration of the soul, which is the basic idea behind darwinian evolution.
I read somewhere that the vedic idea was given to Darwin who gave it a materialistic thread.
It wouldn't surprise me if it was true, but I don't know, and don't care.

If we have no plan or purpose, why do we make plans and give our life purpose?
If we are sons and daughters of random, non directed, meaningless, purposeless processes, aren't we going against our true nature, and taking up the false
nature of a false system (religion) which is of no real use to us?
What does it matter if we kill and rape everything/one we see just because we want to?
Who is to say working together is more beneficial? What is there (apart from our parent, nature) to give an example of complete selfishness, in order for us to know it is not beneficial?

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To Jan's latest incarnation:

Positing the supernatural is just a larger question because it doesn’t really explain anything; it just pushes the answer off. Incomplete answers are invariably wrong, for answers must be complete. The proofs of the self-contradiction of the supernatural remain, as well as that we find only the natural everywhere, the exact place that the supernatural is supposed to be, theistically speaking. It is really just a pronouncement to say that the supernatural can be, one born of a wish. Zero proofs of the supernatural have been found, while there are all kinds of proofs of the natural. The error is then compounded by preaching it, and that is the real problem. Why can’t they say that it’s just a notion? Because then fewer would listen. Science proof is not an internal view like the supernatural is, but is there for all to observe and confirm; however, they may not want to, for then the wish begins to wither. Many will go through all kinds of contortions and distortions to avoid this.

 

''profound religious experience'

Emotions are complex, largely automated programs of actions concocted by evolution that are carried out in our bodies, such as facial expressions, postures, changes in organs, and changes in internal settings and environment.

Emotions are actions accompanied by ideas and certain modes of thinking, while feelings, from emotions, are mostly perceptions of what our bodies do during the emoting, along with perception of our own state of mind during that same period of time. So it is, that, as far as the body is concerned, that feelings are images of actions rather than the actions themselves.

Emotions can be quite spurious, too, the ill effect of brain neurotransmitters out of whack, the serotonin and dopamine levels falling, due to lack of exercise and/or nutrition, or just of one’s base genetics toward depression, anxiety, and obsession.

Emotions or felt sensations don’t make ‘God’.

Neither love nor hate nor bias for an idea will be of any help, in the knowledge of the All, but even of much hindrance as to the full absorbency of the meaning inherent in the facts which are. Pronouncing all sorts of things about Gods and invisible realms can never amount even to the tiniest hill of beans.

Emotional decisions can make one happy, in everyday life as lived, even for such as what the TOE should be, but, there, they can get in the way of the light of truth.

 

. . . says the omniscient being spidergoat. . . .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

SciWriter,

That's how it is for you, and some people, but not for everyone.
Live and let live SciWriter.
May the force of darwinian evolution be with you.

???

What proofs?

So whatever we see is the whole of reality?
Is whatever a micro-organism sees, the whole of reality as well, or do we have a better grasp than it.
If the latter, could it be that like the micro-organism, we cannot percieve everything through our senses?

What is it that you know, why we should abandon our natural inclinations, and agree to your ideas, which are equivilent to the colour of brown.

You mean the dicipline which studies all things material, that can only be accessed because of our human status, has found no evidence of the thing
it does not, nor is equipt to, investigate?

Irrelevant.

Because in some cases it isn't just a notion, it's a human reality. One where one has to have an open mind.
Closed-mindedness - no qualification (that rule applies to alot things)

Science has nothing to do with God, it is purely a way of understanding the world we live in.
You wouldn't go to a flower shop, to buy fresh baked bread would you. The right people for the right job is what I say.

jan.

 

Theology is not a term that is exclusively defined as the "study of religion". It is also a term used to denote a collection of ideas or opinions concerning God. That's why we have terms like Christian theology, Hindu theology or Islamic theology. My initial comments clearly established that I was using the term in the latter sense. I guess we've wasted some time, then.

Sure, I even appreciate the admission therein that the process of creation is all something of a mystery. It's rather respectable. But why is it, then, that even though vedic teachings on the subject of creation are not in direct conflict with evolution, and even though at least 80% of Hindus accept evolution, not only do you ridicule it, you refuse to even learn about it? Instead, you throw in with the crowd behind ID, which is primarily composed of people who have a prior commitment to reject anything that doesn't fit in with a theology that you've just agreed is indeed compromised. Don't you understand who these people are? They have a religious agenda that you don't even agree with. They believe that your beloved vedas are the work of satan. They'd condemn you to hell in a heartbeat. And no matter how authoritative their anti-evolution literature may sound, they've never managed to falsify evolution, ever. Not once. That's a fact. But the only way you'll ever be able to appreciate the truth of this is to do some learning on your own. But you know what? They're relying on the fact that most people wont. And with good reason too. Because they're right. Most people actually wont. That's why they're effective. That's how they've got you believing that there are "gaping holes" in evolutionary theory that falsify it. They're completely full of shit, Jan. Seriously. And you can know this for yourself if you want. You have that power, especially since you don't have the same prior investment in their particular theology to prevent you from seeing the truth.

 

1) Composites can’t be first and fundamental, such as proposing that atoms, molecules, or beings (such as us) are, nor Beings (such as Gods), all the more, to umpteen degrees even, because their parts must come before, and the parts of the parts, they getting ever closer to the simpler and the simplest that is first and fundamental. So, the direction being looked at for the Creator Being God notion is completely opposite, which couldn’t be more wrong, rendering the God notion totally beyond repair.

Plus, a believer cannot demand that life has to come from Life and then throw the template of the demand right out the window to then all of the sudden say that Life wouldn’t then require LIFE behind it, and so forth.

The God notion was but a simpleton idea that just went one level up and then inexplicably halted, “case closed”, ending all thinking, but that’s what dogma is. Our karma has run over the dogma.

Foe those who still doubt, we will identify that humans still use probability, to decide, as they must, in practice, for one cannot really be on and off the fence at the same time, plus sitting on a fence can be uncomfortable. They begin to see that the possibilities of ‘God’ vs ‘no God’ are not equi-probable, as perhaps they mistakenly thought in the first place.

The tricky theist may say that ‘God’ is an unprecedented happening, God just happening to be sitting around eternally as the First, with all His power, having done nothing to earn it (we would add), but at least the tricky theist had to claim more attributes of extensions, but has nothing to show, while we do have something to show, and even more.

2) Basic ‘somethings’, or just ‘something’ are either as Something Forever or From Nothing. ‘Nothing; is not ‘God’, but its opposite, and if as Something Forever then they were never made, and so they had no creation, and thus no Creator.

The two and only two possible options above even conjoin, in that each indicates the other, for Something Forever did not come from anything, and so the notion is incomplete, and we can only complete it by going on to note that when something doesn’t come from anything that this is akin to saying that it comes from nothing.

And for the option of From Nothing there had to be some default (a forced ‘capability’) to make it turn into something, or as ‘sum-things’, positives and negatives, that still sum to zero overall (and we do see this balance of opposites in nature). Yet, the forced defaults’ ‘capability’ was potentially eternal, as unexercised, but not actually eternal, for it changed into a universe, plus we already know that what is said to be ‘forever’ is as from nothing.

‘God’ is now gone twice over. Intermediate managers have been laid off, they adding nothing, and not First.

And still the basis of all has to be simple, for it is not the basis if it is complex or composite, with parts. The Creator Being would not be simple, for it would have to have a system of mind that thinks, plans, designs, and creates.

My thread ‘A Complete Solution to all there is’ shows how the forced default conditions came together as the universe. ‘God’ was not required.

All that’s left to be as ‘God’, but not a ‘God’, is but a highly evolved alien life form making us or putting a microbe here that evolved into us (and evolution has triple confirmation).

So, a 2-0 shutout, although 1-0 would have been enough. It was also a perfect game, since the theist had no hits. Balks were many, though.


3) The Final Solution

There is literally nothing to make anything (actuality) of and so that must be what it comes from, in an expression of it, as a distribution, for no other source is possible. ‘From nothing’ is not from ‘God’; it is from nothing—from nonexistence. It is everything that existence is not.

That’s it. Done. And it cannot be undone. No actuality can be the first source. All things must have beginnings, from nothing, and ‘things’ includes beings.

Confirmation isn’t even needed, but we have it in spades, as an overall zero-balance of ‘sum-things’ as somethings… which summation to zero is the basis for the conservation laws, now as well as before, for they are inherent in the perfect symmetry of nothing. The opposite polarity of charge, matter vs anti-matter, and the negative potential energy of gravity balancing the positive kinetic energy of stuff all together constitute the nullification of existence in the overview, although one of them would be primary, but all are intertwined, such as gravity/mass/matter/energy operating from one another.

And, finally, lo and behold, the universe does appear to have come from nowhere and nothing, for just before it was here it was not here.

Since the universe happened, change is inevitable.

Only the simplest possible actuality could be first, as a thing, but not First, since nothing must be the source of it, and so nothing is ever the First. The simplest actuality produced from nothing would have to be a continuous function (no parts), such as a wave, and its counter-wave, for balance.

What about that the base actuality was around forever, its exact amount just happening to be such and such, no more, no less, already made in its certain form, but never made, that same exact stuff in its original amount still here and ever will be?

While this ‘forever’ result would also disprove ’God’, since the stuff was never created by anything, much less by a Being, it is an incomplete solution, and thus an invariably wrong solution, due to its incompleteness. Something being not from anything is akin to it being from nothing. Things cannot be causeless, leaving only nothing to be causeless, as the default, simplest state.

So, no thing be can first, not even an electron as an ‘elementary’ particle, not even the waves, fields, and oscillations that compose it, nor even a solitary wave and its opposite, which I propose as the first actual things, for there is nothing to make anything of and so that is what was truly First, and its zero-sum balance of opposites shows in nature.

So, now, atheists have something, which is better than just the theist’s feeling/sensation born of repeated exposure to the God idea, or of the nervous system, which felts states of beings are not the whole story, but only a second story, as they are ever of the non-apparent first story substrates of the levels of physical and neurological states beneath, on into the basement beneath those.

3-0 shutout.

Where are your proofs, Jan?

You don't have any.

 

Rav,

The literal meaning of the word is ''study of God''.
Christian theology must mean ''study of God'' from the Christian biblical perspective, and so on.

That's not what I said or implied.

A Hindu can be an atheist, and still be a Hindu by birth, so that's nothing big.
I don't ridicule evolution at all, I just don't think it's the best explanation for how we got here.

As for not wanting to learn about it.
What's so hard about the basic concept of evolution, micro or macro (I know you don't like using those terms, but I do)? I understand the basics of it, and I know most of the arguments used by the evolution mob.

I don't know everything about it, but who does? Scientists, people who are particularly interested in that part of science. I have an interest in it, so I learn about it. So bite me.

First of all, I don't ''throw in'' with anybody. I've got a mind of my own, and I do use it.
Unless you can show me some kind of evidence which demonstrates ID'ists rejecting anything that doestn't fit in with a theology because of prior commitment, I can only regard you as a gossip, or appealing to hearsay.

However the quote which included the sentiment we cannot allow a divine foot in the door because matter is absolute, describes the type of character you try to shove on to ID'ists. If you can come up with a similiar quote from a fellow ID'ists, then you may have a point.

I don't see what they are doing as Christianity, and hopefully this work will open the minds of fundamentalists, and create a religion that is not so all over the place.

Oh! So now we believe in conspiracy theories?
I think you're just being paranoid.

Well hopefully the more they see Gods' Handy work in nature, they'll realise that is not the case.
I don't see or feel any such condemnation in their discussions, lectures, debates, or papers, so it doesn't concern me. I'm only interested in the science.

If that's the case i'm not surprised, you guys have a explanation for every little thing. Soon the slogan will be,
''Life, existence, and consciousness, means nothing except in light of evolution''.

That's probably the most intelligent thing you've said, and that's exactly what I'm doing. Maybe you should take your own advice, and stop acting like you know everything.

Why do I get the feeling you're projecting your sides mentality on to them?

I don't see them calling people morons because they don't know as much as them.
I don't see them using ''you don't understand ID'' because they've been asked something which they can't answer.
I don't see them calling evolutionists idiots, people with personality disorders, peddlers of communism, or try to ridicule them in anyway.

The trouble with you and others is that you can't see how appalling the public image of the evolution camp is .
If you understand anything about truth, you'll know that you don't have to force it down people's throat, and condemn them because they think you're talking shit.
A person imparting truth knows the reason why people cannot access that information simply because at one point they were in the same position. They know that the truth will be revealed to them at some point. They merely plant the seed which will germinate through the course of time as the person develops.
Just the way your community acts is reason enough to be suspect of that which you're trying pedal.

So leave them be. If evolution is true it will become self-evident over time.
At present all we have is a seeminly elitist group with the title of atheists, telling everybody if they don't accept
their way of thinking they're all knuckle-dragging morons who deserve to be mocked and ridiculed untill they surrender.

Rav, you need to accept that people don't accept it as an explanation, laymen and proffessional scientists alike.
Get over it. If it works for you, great, but it doesn't work for everyone.
There are gaping holes in the theory, just listen to the debates. I say debate, but the evolutionist never really debates, they almost always turn into comedians trying to get the crowd on their side. It's pitifull.

Listen to yourself Rav.
Listen to you easily condemn these guys to shit-talkers. These guys are serious scientists, who love doing science, just like any other scientist. IT'S ONLY A JOB.
Leave it out, this kind of rhetoric is not necessary.


jan.

 

2

a : a theological theory or system <Thomist theology> <a theology of atonement>
b : a distinctive body of theological opinion <Catholic theology> ​

from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theology

See? Theology is indeed the study of God, but the term is also very commonly used in the above sense. And again, I clearly established the sense in which I originally used it. Move on.

Actually it was theists I was talking about. Check the link I provided.

You call it an "atheist fairy tale". I think it's an impotent form of ridicule (primarily because it's so incorrect), but it's still ridicule. As for it not being the best explanation, you can't actually properly appreciate enough of the scope of it's explanatory power to make that determination. It's not because you're incapable, it's because you're ill-equipped. I'll get into that a little more below.

Understanding the most basic mechanisms of evolution isn't nearly enough. It does almost nothing to counter the cognitive dissonance experienced when trying to entertain it all as an actual truth. Evolution does, after all, defy our default common sense. This is because even though we were shaped by the mechanisms of evolution, we weren't shaped by an understanding of those mechanisms. We just don't live long enough, and as such our environment has always seemed almost entirely static to us. It's the same with something like Einstein's theory of special and general relativity. It's all wholly counter-intuitive. And just like evolution, you can be taught the basics without being very much closer to properly overcoming your natural inclination to reject it. In this case, it's just because we've never experienced anything even close to relativistic speeds. What one needs is a lot more information, and more time to reflect upon it.

The point is that you've barely sighted the shore of an entire continent already overgrown with evidence, understanding and perspective that is continually bubbling up from the springs of many different disciplines into the most powerful and harmonious explanatory framework science has yet produced. What makes it so profound is it's power to contextualize aspects of our existence, not merely as a speculative philosophical exercise, but factually. But you can't possibly discover any of this by permanently messing around off-shore, listening to long-distance pronouncements instead of conducting your own comprehensive exploration.

It's actually shocking to encounter a person who purports to be qualified to discuss theological issues but doesn't understand something as simple as the fundamentalist mindset. A commitment to the inerrancy of their theology is a defining characteristic, and is precisely why they are so incapable of doing unbiased research in areas that are critical to the truth value of that theology.

Other scientists who are also theists, but aren't fundamentalists, don't have this problem. They are free to accept everything science teaches us about the natural world and likely simply see the process as the gaining of knowledge about the nature of God's creation. In fact some have expressed as much.

Homework question: which camp do you think is more likely to be objective? It's rhetorical of course

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The religious agenda behind the ID movement has been clearly exposed, time and time again, and more than once in a court of law. This is just a hard, demonstrated, documented fact.

For as long as they remain fundamentalists, they wont.

That's only because when they are being ID proponents, they are pretending not to be Christian fundamentalists. There's a biblical quote for that: "shrewd as a snake, but innocent as a dove", except they fail to live up to the innocent part on closer examination.

If you've finally decided to read some books on evolution, that's a good start. After all, it's only fair that you do so before continuing to weigh in on it's veracity. I commend you.

You're failing to make a distinction between the people and the science, just as I would be failing to make a distinction between people and a theology if I decided to judge it's merits based on those adherents who liked to criticize and condemn me the most.

The bottom line is that this is only a problem for you because years have literally gone by during which you've failed to actually do any real research yourself.

I do actually listen to the debates. What creationists ID proponents so often do is exaggerate, misrepresent and sometimes outright fabricate (with bad science) when they attack evolution. But you'd never know this unless every time you "learn" something from their literature you do further research somewhere outside of creationist circles. When you do this it's not just about getting a different opinion, it's about witnessing how weak their criticisms so often are when the ever-growing greater body of evolutionary theory finally comes to bear on them.

Further, gaping holes aren't automatically tragic anyway. Sometimes they are simply currently missing pieces of the complete puzzle. There are certainly no gaping holes in the theory of evolution that actually serve to falsify it.

 

Great! Plus a lot more of the post.

IDers flail around in the shallows.

 

James R,

I've told you before, I have my own mind, and I use it.

What's the matter with you guys?
Isn't what I actually said good enough for you to work offa, why you have to put words in my mouth

Apart from the a whole host of reasons on the internet, most of which are obvious points of contention, others
being points of contention I didn't realise, but now agree with. I'll just put a simple request in.

You say it is a scientific fact that one kind of animal, over time, changes into a completely different kind of animal. Furthermore you claim this as been observerd, and gone through the scientific method.
Can you provide a link where I can see this for myself.

I'm not a performing monkey, and you must be living in a different world if you really think I know nothing about evolution. I know more about it than alot of people I encounter who believe in it (and yes I meant believe).

Everyone knows evolution is a fact. We don't need to even argue about that.
What I'm purely interested in, is one kind of animal, changing into a completely different kind. I know you don't see any difference, but we both know there is. Demonstrate that, not with fancy science talk, but with the kind of hard, factual evidence you guys keep saying there is. You all make it seem that not believing in that phenomenon is idiotic (as anybody with a brain knows it's a fact), so please show me.

You may have a point there. But why should the public care a hoot about it?

Good point. How does the current evolutionary model explain the nano-technology contained within the cell?
Sure, you take a couple parts from a mouse-trap, and you can use it as a coaster, paper-weight, or door-stop.
But that doesn't explain anything.

jan.

 

Life itself is nano-technology, so I don't see how the phrase changes anything about evolution.

 

James R,


The Challenge:

James, did you understand the question I put to you.
If as you and your like-minded bretheren assert, that one kind of animal changes into
another kind of animal, then this should be recorded.
Now all this link provides are assertions, stories, and possibly wishfull-thinking.

Please provide a link that observes such a change, or admit that it not been observed.

I see cartoon depictions of animals, accompanied by written text assuming that this is some kind of
evolutionary linage.

You mean you interpret my posts.
You should try actually literalise my quotes, rather than apply your own meaning to them.

And this analasys is based on what?

Yes you do need to spoon feed me, because I don't see any evidence where one kind of animal changes into
a different kind, yet you are charging me with not knowing that which I cannot see. So if you show me this evidence, then
I can see it also, and make a proper conclusion.

Where is the evidence of this (a scientific fact that one kind of animal, over time, changes into a completely different kind of animal).?

jan.

 

I think the term is just a modern one that accommodates global cultural exchange. In the Europe-centered culture of the Enlightenment, the term Deism was used with very nearly the same meaning as far as your arguments are concerned. And yet Deists were well before Darwin or anything except the most primitive inkling that species could evolve. Deists were merely responding to the overturning of the geocentric universe by Copernicus and Galileo. More specifically, Newton explained it so concisely, there was not to be any shrinking away from it. This is why you're not advocating a flat earth. You've caught up with the Renaissance.

Darwin doesn't overturn anything theological that wasn't already upended by the Deists. And he himself was a Christian. Theistic evolution is merely the niche that religious believers fell into, after clinging to a European style of creationism following the Enlightenment, that is, unwilling to go as far as the Deists in thinking God was so impersonal as not to intervene. But with Darwin's discoveries - that species had evolved on a place that didn't even exist in primordial times - these archipelagos that are relatively young - the late 19th and early 20th century believers, particularly those who could get a decent education, found common ground with Deism, and these "rational believers" spread their ideas during the late Imperialism and missionary movements that took them to places as far removed from the controversy as India.

Most atheist fairy tales aren't written by Christians. Darwin was a Christian, and best tells the tale. Of course the truth is stranger than fiction. His accounts are good as Treasure Island, yet with all the data, and his enthusiasm for scientific detail, he doesn't even forget to log his journal with up to the minute sketches of new finds. It's a documentary, nothing more. You may feel the salt spray in your face as he tells you what he found one bright morning, but realism is like that.

The pressure you sense is nothing more than the understandable reaction by anyone who took the time to read Darwin, or even just the dry scientific journals, to the call for interference with science education -- primarily in America, and in countries where American fundamentalism is active -- by trying, over a period of at least 100 years, to limit or alter the curricula with respect to teaching evolution. Were it not for that, I doubt you would sense any pressure whatsoever. Atheists don't care what anyone believes. They care about how those beliefs encroach on their rights and the rights of innocent school children, who will grow into yet another oppressive generation if not given unfettered access to the unadulterated information in that universal body of knowledge we call science.

 

Aside from certain scriptoral sources, there was no way of knowing the shape of the earth, or that the earth was a planet, or that the sun was millions of miles away. We have proof of the shape of the earth.
Can you go where JamesR failed? Be my quest, because that is essence of this argument. Good luck.

jan.