Do you believe in Evolution?

[The Black Forrest]

I did not claim that the theistic evolution proponent has no backing for his theological claims, only that they need not be scientific. He arrives at his theistic claims through a different avenue than he arrives at his evolutionary claims, which is only to be expected, since his theistic claims are theological and/or philosophical, while his evolutionary claims are scientific and empirical.

A claim on the origin of our universe, is Scientific.

Depends on of the claim.

Suggesting the universe is nothing more then a dream after eating a plate of tacos is scientific?

[Hargrave]

Evolution is an observable fact, religion should not blind people to the natural world but help them explore its meaning.

[Neo Rome Republic]

A claim on the origin of our universe, is Scientific.

Depends on of the claim.

Suggesting the universe is nothing more then a dream after eating a plate of tacos is scientific?

If that is true then God doesn't exist.

[The Tovian Way]

The theistic evolution proponent can accept every accepted scientific claim as to how the universe began. He merely makes a further, non-scientific, claim that the ultimate cause of these origins is a supernatural being.

Nope, it's Scientific if it's a claim on the origin of our universe.

The claim that there exists a supernatural person who is the ultimate cause for the accepted scientific origins of the universe is not a scientific claim.

[Volnotova]

How long have you guys believed in the theory of evolution?

Keep ignoring the evidence thrown in your face many times before in this thread.

Very classy.

So, where is this rebuttal of yours?

[Riiser-Larsen]

The theistic evolution proponent can accept every accepted scientific claim as to how the universe began. He merely makes a further, non-scientific, claim that the ultimate cause of these origins is a supernatural being.

Nope, it's Scientific if it's a claim on the origin of our universe.

It's scientific if it's based on available evidence. God or supernatural beings are a construction of philosophy, theology, and various myths, thus the claim that the universe being created by a supernatural being is a non-scientific belief. That has nothing to do with it's validity (though it holds little water) but it is not scientific.

[Kantria]

I'm just curious on when you guys found out about it. No major need to get all fussy, you know.

If I was really fussy, I wouldn't have answered the question at all. You have seemed hell-bent on using every weapon in your arsenal to dismantle the theory being discussed and I just wanted to be sure that my answer included an inoculation against any potential personal attacks. I'm not an authority on evolution, after all, and I don't claim to be.

[Volnotova]

Did you look at my information?

It's lost in all these comments. Would you be so kind to dig it out for me?

Stop lying.

Page 3, it has been said and linked many times before.

[The Black Forrest]

So you are saying Theistic evolution is a religious theory.

In a way. It is a synthesis of scientific theory (evolution via natural selection) and religious/philosophical theory (theism, Christianity, Prime Moverism, what have you).

The religious philosophical fails the science part.

Theistic evolution is fine for discussion in a Religious Studies classroom.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Nope, it's Scientific if it's a claim on the origin of our universe.

The claim that there exists a supernatural person who is the ultimate cause for the accepted scientific origins of the universe is not a scientific claim.

It's a claim on the origin of our universe. You calling it magic, doesn't change shit.

[Mkuki]

I don't get this attitude. How can you say you don't approve of science when you're using it's results every single day?

Speaking as a scientist, it's okay. Anti-science people can use our stuff.

I'm pretty sure at least a few of the kids who got the Salk vaccine were complete brats. That's okay. There are Young Earth Creationists who drive cars that run on the very fossilized material that, according to them, does not exist. Creationists get heart transplants, blood transfusions, and countless other life-saving procedures which only exist because of evolutionary biology and related concepts.

Science works whether they believe in it or not.

And I mean, yeah, it's pretty fucking rude for anti-science people to use our advances while simultaneously spitting on us, but we get the smug satisfaction of knowing that they are only able to show their asses on the internet BECAUSE of everything we have done for them. So it breaks even IMO.

I guess. It just irritates me. It's made that much worse since I live in Georgia.

[Utceforp]

Hmmm....
Do I believe in something very explainable, or something written by a people who believe in a god that's rehashed from another god.
Hard choice

Oh boy. What god does this imply that mine stems from might I ask? (can't wait for the hair brained answer)

Well, I'm not an expert in these things, so I can't say what God YHWH was based on(Though there is one he's based on, not doubt), but as I pointed out, Noah is a blatant copy of Utnapishtim.

[Salandriagado]

No, you don't need to assume God is the cause for evolution. The theistic evolution proponent need not claim that this assumption is needed. He merely asserts that God is in fact the cause for evolution, not that He must be.
As far as his grounds for so believing, he can have any number of philosophical and theological arguments to support this claim, outside the two you have mentioned. They need not be scientific, because what he is asserting is not a scientific hypothesis; it is a theological claim which further informs a worldview which also includes scientific arguments, such as the theory of evolution via natural selection.

So you are saying Theistic evolution is a religious theory.

No, it's not a theory.

[Bottle]

How the hell can you even reasonably deny it?

Evolutionary biology is hard.

I don't wanna.

Therefore, God.

That's what "reasonable" means, right? Well, it is now, because that's how I want to use the word.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Nope, it's Scientific if it's a claim on the origin of our universe.

It's scientific if it's based on available evidence. God or supernatural beings are a construction of philosophy, theology, and various myths, thus the claim that the universe being created by a supernatural being is a non-scientific belief. That has nothing to do with it's validity (though it holds little water) but it is not scientific.

What's a hypothesis then?

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

In a way. It is a synthesis of scientific theory (evolution via natural selection) and religious/philosophical theory (theism, Christianity, Prime Moverism, what have you).

The religious philosophical fails the science part.

Theistic evolution is fine for discussion in a Religious Studies classroom.

Give me examples that aren't metaphorical quotations of the Bible and I'll stop laughing at how ignorant you are.

[Liriena]

I did not mention Christianity specifically, but depending on how the Christian interprets the creation passages in Genesis, there is no necessary coherency problems in also accepting the theory of evolution via natural selection. It is mainly the Genesis-literal interpretation that suffers from such issues.

Actually, coherency problems would still exist even without a literalist interpretation of the Bible. It would fall unto the theistic evolutionist to explain the reason why a deity (especially an anthropocentric deity such as the Abrahamic one, which is allegedly omnipotent, omniscient and not bound by the laws of physics) create and guide our Universe through the physical laws and phenomena that we know of. Why would an anthropocentric God take billions of years to have the evolutionary process create humans? Why would an anthropocentric God make our Sun a finite (and deadly) source of energy that will eventually destroy our planet? Why would an anthropocentric God create billions of other galaxies, which we will probably never visit, and billions of planets that will be gone long before we can visit them? Why would an anthropocentric God have the evolutionary process create humans, and then wait thousands of years to show himself in human mythological texts, such as the Bible? Why are eating, breathing, drinking and sleeping be necessary concepts in this God's design? Why is the massive, deadly void of outer space a necessary concept? Why does this anthropocentric God allow so many physical obstacles, many of which our species cannot avoid?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

How the hell can you even reasonably deny it?

God. It isn't reasonable, but it doesn't stop people anyway.

[The Tovian Way]

In a way. It is a synthesis of scientific theory (evolution via natural selection) and religious/philosophical theory (theism, Christianity, Prime Moverism, what have you).

The religious philosophical fails the science part.

Theistic evolution is fine for discussion in a Religious Studies classroom.

The religious/philosophical theory does not purport to be a scientific theory, any more than the scientific theory purports to be a religious or philosophical one. Theistic evolution is a synthesis between the religious/philosophical and the scientific, because the two are mutually compatible.

[Regnum Dominae]

How the hell can you even reasonably deny it?

"LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU THEREFORE GOD, pretty much.

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

How the hell can you even reasonably deny it?

Evolutionary biology is hard.

I don't wanna.

Therefore, God.

That's what "reasonable" means, right? Well, it is now, because that's how I want to use the word.

No wonder you're an atheist. You don't even try to see the connections scientists are bumping into that the Bible already summarized.

[Utceforp]

The religious philosophical fails the science part.

Theistic evolution is fine for discussion in a Religious Studies classroom.

Give me examples that aren't metaphorical quotations of the Bible and I'll stop laughing at how ignorant you are.

Anyone who prefers a thousands of years old myth over thousands of years of scientific progress doesn't get to call anyone else "ignorant".

[Aquafireland]

It's lost in all these comments. Would you be so kind to dig it out for me?

Stop lying.

Page 3, it has been said and linked many times before.

I'm not lying. You just accuse me directly due to the fact that I don't belive in Evolution. If you want me to read it so bad, bring it up for me. I'm not wasting my time looking for that thing.

[Neo Rome Republic]

The religious philosophical fails the science part.

Theistic evolution is fine for discussion in a Religious Studies classroom.

The religious/philosophical theory does not purport to be a scientific theory, any more than the scientific theory purports to be a religious or philosophical one. Theistic evolution is a synthesis between the religious/philosophical and the scientific, because the two are mutually compatible.

It's a guess on the origin of our universe, a hypothesis so, it requires a Scientific burden of proof.

[Salandriagado]

It's scientific if it's based on available evidence. God or supernatural beings are a construction of philosophy, theology, and various myths, thus the claim that the universe being created by a supernatural being is a non-scientific belief. That has nothing to do with it's validity (though it holds little water) but it is not scientific.

What's a hypothesis then?

A falsifiable claim.