is natural selection atheistic?

[Guest shiloh357]

Oh, I believe that God knows every particle in my body. I see no problem with that. But He also seems content to allow my body, my surroundings etc to almost always go according to some preset order, that I believe God created. If that were not so, then we couldn't do science at all. But, we do, and we do it very successfully, so I think I am correct in inferring that God typically seems to allow His created order to play out.

 

The Bible teaches that God is sustaining the created order.  God is not simply letting things, "play out."   If you are calling yourself a Christian and you are wanting to comment on what God  does or doesn't do, the Bible needs to be your source material for that.  The Bible teaches that God is intimately involved in how things are working.  And I have provided several examples from Scripture to that effect.    So no, you are NOT correct in your inference about God because your inference doesn't agree with how God reveals Himself in Scripture.

 

Natural selection is just a way of describing some of those 'naturally occurring' phenomena.

 

No, it's a way of describing those natural occurring phenomena apart from an all-knowing, all-powerful God.  It denies the supernatural element involved in God's sustaining power over all of His creation.

 

As far as whether or not theistic evolution would ever be taught in the classroom, what's that to me or the debate?

 

 

It isn't science.  It tries to mix God and science, which we have been soundly rebuked by the scientific community and told that the two cannot be mixed. 

I already granted at the beginning that many atheists will prima facie deny that evolution allows for God's active participation- I just think they are completely mistaken.

 

Theistic evolution does not have moral implications. I'm not sure what to make of your jump there. It's descriptive.

 

 

It's an oxymoron.  Evolution has no theistic causality if you are completely honest about the theory.  To take a theory that is predicated on an impersonal, blind, unplanned, unguided process was planned by an personal creator is internally inconsidtent and intellectually dishonest where the Theory of Evolution is concerned.   It's like claiming that someone can be a Christian and an Atheist at the same time (Atheistic Christianity).  

 

That is what was at the heart of your previous thread about being able to deny historicity of Adam.  That is so typical of theistic evolutionists. You seek to find ways to discard the parts of the Bible that provide an obstacle to what you want to believe.  You seek to mold the Bible around yourself and your beliefs, instead of letting the Bible inform your theology.

[Guest shiloh357]

I am still not getting something here, although Shiloh has been drilling on it.  The imperfections are a result of sin.  So the tapeworm was a result of sin, or did it preexist in a benign condition (which I have trouble envisioning)?  Are plate tectonics imperfections since they result in earthquakes and tsunamis?  I can grasp death and some types of illness as the result of the Fall; that is what the Bible leads us to believe.

What I am saying is that the parasites that bring disease and death to other living creatures, before the fall of man probably served either good purposes or were neutral. The Bible is clear that the destruction we see in the natural world is because of sin.  In a broken world, sin mansifests itself in death and disease, and even natural disasters.

 

That doesn't rule out God's ability to use natural disasters for His purposes.  God sent the global flood in Genesis, he sent the plagues to Egypt, he sent the asps to plague Israel in the desert. He caused droughts and famines as a result of his judgment and/or providence.

 

According to the Bible, many "natural" occurences are not always the simple result of a natural cause, but may have a supernatural origin.

[gray wolf]

Parasites probably were beneficial or were neutral before the fall.  Your guess is as good as mine.  About evolution and Christianity.  I have read on numerous occasions that there is no objection really to microevolution in Christianity.  What do you think of that?  What I'm hearing here is a call for Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA).  Science is the authority for scientific matters and religious authorities maintain matters of faith.  Atheist evolutionary biologists trying to make authoritative statements on faith are not acceptable, nor are scientific judgements from evangelists and theologians.  I think this is a prudent view to take, considering how emotions run high when theism and evolution are discussed.

Edited November 29, 2013 by gray wolf

[Guest shiloh357]

I have read on numerous occasions that there is no objection really to microevolution in Christianity.

 

Yep, I have said that numeous times in my posts, as well if you had read them.

 

Your guess is as good as mine.

 

I wasn't making a guess.  I don't need to guess. I have the infallible word of an all-knowing God.  Why should I trust the theories of sinful, fallible men?

 

Atheist evolutionary biologists trying to make authoritative statements on faith are not acceptable, nor are scientific pronouncements from evangelists and theologians.

 

 

So atheistic evolutionary biologsts should be the only ones making statements about natural selection?

[gray wolf]

Just in a previous post you were saying you either accept the theory or don't and so on.  Black or white.  

The only ones that ought to make authoritative statements are those who qualified.  We can all venture an opinion, of course and must decide if we believe something or not.  I do not give very much weight as to whether Einstein believed in Christ or what sort of God he believed in.  Ditto for Richard Dawkins.  But if an evolutionary biologist makes a statement about evolution, I pay attention.  I would also pay attention to an evolutionary biologist who said she did not believe in evolution and had an alternative model to explain what we see.  It would be exhilarating 

Edited November 29, 2013 by gray wolf

[Guest shiloh357]

Just in a previous post you were saying you either accept the theory or don't and so on.  Black or white.  

 

Yes.  I was just clarifying that natural selection is indeed atheistic given that atheistic evolutionary biologists are the only ones who should be making statements about. It contradicts your previous claim that it is perfectly acceptable to believe that God used Evolution/natural selection in the creative process.

 

 

The only ones that ought to make authoritative statements are those who qualified.

 

Technically, everyone is a theologian.  Atheism is a form of theology.  So even atheistic scientists who deny God's involvement are making theological statements.

 

But tell me this...  Who is more qualified to comment on how the world was made than an all-knowing God who never lies?

 

If a scientist doubts the theory of evolution, she needs to come up with another model with predictive and explanatory powers.  Then the model must be be able to explain what we see in nature and the model must be presented to the scientific community for further verification and review.

 

There is a problem namely that the evolutionary model has failed to explain what we see in nature, primarily because it can't be empirically proven and it has NEVER been intuitively observed ( and I am not talking about micro-Evolution).  I am not talking about peppered moths or finches or bacteria strains.  I am talking about the convetional form of evolution that most people regularly envision, namely macro-Evolution.

 

As for verification and review...  I would point out that the scientific community bars anyone employing a creationist model from being published in peer review journals.  The scientific community complains that creationists are not peer reviewed, but they actively prevent creationists from being peer reviewed.  As such, it only highlights the lack of integrity that exists in the scientific community where their atheistic bias is concerned.

[OldSchool2]

Now no doubt there are many evolutionists out there who would be angered at the notion that God could be behind natural selection, but is there anything about this notion that inherently precludes the idea? I don't see how ...

 

Neither do I, as natual selection, unlike evolution, is demonstrated daily in nature and perhaps in the parable of the talents.

 

Even some naturalists have postulated the existence of a so-called God gene that may help explain why entire generations of families have accepted Christianity.

 

from NYTimes:

 

"Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.

 

"For atheists, it is not a particularly welcome thought that religion evolved because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors. If religion is a lifebelt, it is hard to portray it as useless."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0

[Guest]

Just in a previous post you were saying you either accept the theory or don't and so on.  Black or white.  

The only ones that ought to make authoritative statements are those who qualified.

 

 

I

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:16

 

Totally

 

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good action. 2 Timothy 2:16-17 (International Standard Version)

 

Agree

 

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Genesis 1:2

 

Especially From

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

Those Who Were There

 

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Job 38:1-4

[gray wolf]

 

Just in a previous post you were saying you either accept the theory or don't and so on.  Black or white.  

 

Yes.  I was just clarifying that natural selection is indeed atheistic given that atheistic evolutionary biologists are the only ones who should be making statements about. It contradicts your previous claim that it is perfectly acceptable to believe that God used Evolution/natural selection in the creative process.

 

 

The only ones that ought to make authoritative statements are those who qualified.

 

Technically, everyone is a theologian.  Atheism is a form of theology.  So even atheistic scientists who deny God's involvement are making theological statements.

 

But tell me this...  Who is more qualified to comment on how the world was made than an all-knowing God who never lies?

 

If a scientist doubts the theory of evolution, she needs to come up with another model with predictive and explanatory powers.  Then the model must be be able to explain what we see in nature and the model must be presented to the scientific community for further verification and review.

 

There is a problem namely that the evolutionary model has failed to explain what we see in nature, primarily because it can't be empirically proven and it has NEVER been intuitively observed ( and I am not talking about micro-Evolution).  I am not talking about peppered moths or finches or bacteria strains.  I am talking about the convetional form of evolution that most people regularly envision, namely macro-Evolution.

 

As for verification and review...  I would point out that the scientific community bars anyone employing a creationist model from being published in peer review journals.  The scientific community complains that creationists are not peer reviewed, but they actively prevent creationists from being peer reviewed.  As such, it only highlights the lack of integrity that exists in the scientific community where their atheistic bias is concerned.

 

If the creationist model presented relies on the supernatural as a premise, it will not be accepted by the scientific community for obvious reasons.  It is perfectly fine to be a theist and a scientist.   But at no time are you allowed to invoke the supernatural to explain a phenomena which does not have an obvious explanation or mechanism.

I spent many years as a young earther.  But it proved too much for my beleaguered mind and I couldn't continue to espouse it and feel I was being honest.  You don't need to tell me I either believe in science or the bible.  I feel that it is a false dichotomy.

[Guest shiloh357]

If the creationist model presented relies on the supernatural as a premise, it will not be accepted by the scientific community for obvious reasons.

 

 Yes, that is true, but that only shows that science is looking for a naturalistic explanation and not necessarily the truth.   Even though science cannot detect the supernatural, there is evidence for God in what He created.  There are those who are looking for an explanation based upon what they are prepared to accept.  That is not objective.  

 

 

 

It is perfectly fine to be a theist and a scientist.   But at no time are you allowed to invoke the supernatural to explain a phenomena which does not have an obvious explanation or mechanism.

 

But what if that is what happened?   What if the answer to man's origins isn't scientific???  What if the univserse IS guided by an all-knowing, all-powerful God?   I mean, shouldn't the quest be for the truth?  

 

I spent many years as a young earther.  But it proved too much for my beleaguered mind and I couldn't continue to espouse it and feel I was being honest.  You don't need to tell me I either believe in science or the bible.  I feel that it is a false dichotomy.

 

It is NOT a false dichotomy.  Even atheistic evolutionists are honest enough to admit that a plain reading of Genesis 1 precludes Evolution.   I mean, I think it is odd that the most honest people about the issue are the atheists, and not those who claim to believe in God.   Theistic Evolutionists are among the most intellectually dishonest people in the world when it comes to the Bible and Evolution.    Atheists, I have found, are more dependable when it comes to an objective assessment of Genesis 1.   It is the only time I have found myself actually agreeing with them.   I may not agree with their entire assessment, but I agree with them that one cannot live with one foot in Evolution and the other foot in Genesis.