Theistic Evolution

[Diamond]

This is about TE, Theistic Evolution. If you want to talk about something else like YEC or OEC then that would be another thread. 

So the question is, what is TE? Now a days AI gives us an idea of the difference between TE and Darwinism Evolution.  First of all we have to read our Bible. As we progress from one day to the next that is evolution. All of Creation is defined in 32 verses in the first chapter of Genesis. Every word is eternal and hundreds of books even hundreds of thousands of book could not fully explain just one word in Genesis one. Then we see chapter two and all of a sudden we have one man and one women and one Eden. The first chapter explains all of the universe from the beginning but chapter two take about the beginning of civilization. This is what James Breasted talks about the transition from hunter gather to food producer. 

TE includes many school of teaching. Bible & Theology, Science and Biology, History and Archeology, Geology and the history of the Earth. But even the Earth is still a part of the Universe and the laws of astro physics. Science does not know where the laws are or where they came from. If you want to say God than that is the best explanation. Still we can not touch, handle or see a law. We only see the effect of that law. This is when we come to Theistic Evolution and we study how God created the Earth and the Universe. Of course why is another thread. 

Science wants to Hijack the word Evolution and use it for their purpose according to their definition and we cannot allow them to do that. In general science does not contradict the Bible and the Bible does not conflict with Science. They go hand in hand and define each other. For example even though theologics use The study of the principles of interpreting the Bible is called biblical hermeneutics. I do not see any problem with using the science method to study the Bible. Science confirms that the Bible is true and accurate. 

[NConly]

23 minutes ago, Diamond said:

I do not see any problem with using the science method to study the Bible. Science confirms that the Bible is true and accurate. 

And the Bible confirms that certain science is true before science discovered it.

[Jayne]

3 hours ago, Diamond said:

 

So the question is, what is TE? Now a days AI gives us an idea of the difference between TE and Darwinism Evolution.  

Brother [or sister], we don't need artificial intelligence to explain what theistic evolution is.  I'm not understanding what you are saying here.

I am 62 years old.  I taught science for many, many years and loved it:  earth science, life science, physics, a little chemistry.

I have read the Bible for decades and taught it to pre-schoolers, junior high students, my peers, and elderly ladies for decades.  I can safely and confidently tell you that theistic evolution matches NOTHING that the Bible says.

Here is the literal definition of theistic evolution.

It is the belief that God created the "ingredients" for life - chemicals, gases, certain atoms/moles, lightening, water, earth - and that life just popped up into being and evolved just like Darwin said.   First with the sun and a little lightening came cells, then those broke out into multi-celled organisms which helped form organs later, then very simple creatures like simple worms and sponges, then fish, then some of those "crawled out" of the sea and became reptiles/amphibians, then birds, then early types of mammals, then some large mammals, then some of the larger ones crawled back into the sea and became whales, then some larger rodents, some small primates, some larger primates, some "types" of humanoids, more smaller types of humanoids, then a human that could stand up, and so on to what is called modern man who has a larger brain and can talk.

And all of this took billions and billions of years.

Theistic evolution and Darwin's evolution are the exact same thing.  The only difference is that people who believe in theistic evolution believe that God did the evolution.

Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis are completely not theistic evolution.

I don't say this to criticize you, but to help you understand.

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2024 by Jayne

[Sparks]

4 hours ago, Diamond said:

.... the Bible does not conflict with Science. They go hand in hand and define each other.

The problem is that the 'science' conflicts with the science.  There is no observation of macroevolution; only micro, and there is also nothing in the Bible talking about macro, either.  Neither conflict with one another when one is unobserved (scientific observation), and the the other is imagined (Biblical confirmation).

[Diamond]

3 hours ago, Jayne said:

Theistic evolution and Darwin's evolution are the exact same thing.

Not they are not at all. You can believe what you want but it is just a different perspective than mine. If you know science than you know that everything is relative. 

[Diamond]

6 hours ago, NConly said:

And the Bible confirms that certain science is true before science discovered it.

That is why Gerald goes back before Science discovered something to confirm this is what people believed. For example Nahmanides writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman" - from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold" when matter condenses from the substance-less substance of the big bang creation. When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no material substance, that's when the biblical clock starts.

[Jayne]

50 minutes ago, Diamond said:

Not they are not at all. You can believe what you want but it is just a different perspective than mine. If you know science than you know that everything is relative. 

You are indeed speaking from perspective.  Perspective is not truth.  Perspective changes based on opinions of how the individual sees his or her reality.

I gave you facts.  Facts are founded on truth.

Good day.  I'll not argue with you.

[Tristen]

9 hours ago, Diamond said:

This is about TE, Theistic Evolution. If you want to talk about something else like YEC or OEC then that would be another thread. 

Does this mean you only want to hear from people who already agree with you? What is the point of such a conversation?

I would have thought the reason to start a thread is to subject your ideas to the scrutiny of differing perspectives.

 

9 hours ago, Diamond said:

So the question is, what is TE?

Generally speaking, "TE" is acquiescence to the secular narrative of the history of life on earth - but with the post-hoc inclusion of God as the primary cause and director of that narrative.

 

9 hours ago, Diamond said:

First of all we have to read our Bible. As we progress from one day to the next that is evolution

This is an Equivocation fallacy.

In a scientific sense, the term "evolution" refers to how life has undergone phenotypical change - from the phenotype of the putative first life/common ancestor - and thereby explaining the diversity of life we observe on earth today (without any god or spirit intervening).

Whilst the core definition of the word "evolution" simply means change, it would be disingenuous to claim we are using the term to refer to simple, day-to-day changes in an individual. That definition does not reflect the context of the debate.

 

9 hours ago, Diamond said:

All of Creation is defined in 32 verses in the first chapter of Genesis

Yes - and a little of chapter two.

 

9 hours ago, Diamond said:

Every word is eternal and hundreds of books even hundreds of thousands of book could not fully explain just one word in Genesis one

This is religious, pseudo-spiritual gobbledygook.

 

9 hours ago, Diamond said:

Then we see chapter two and all of a sudden we have one man and one women and one Eden. The first chapter explains all of the universe from the beginning but chapter two take about the beginning of civilization. This is what James Breasted talks about the transition from hunter gather to food producer.

This sounds like Eisegesis - an attempt to interpret ideas into the Bible that are not directly found in the text itself. Eisegesis is considered to be poor interpretation methodology (i.e. poor hermeneutics).

Genesis, chapter one (and the start of chapter two) gives a broad overview of creation. Then chapter two narrows in on the story of humanity.

 

9 hours ago, Diamond said:

TE includes many school of teaching. Bible & Theology, Science and Biology, History and Archeology, Geology and the history of the Earth. But even the Earth is still a part of the Universe and the laws of astro physics. Science does not know where the laws are or where they came from. If you want to say God than that is the best explanation.

"TE" is essentially a god-of-the-gaps argument. These types of arguments are rationally weak - but still technically rational.

 

9 hours ago, Diamond said:

Science wants to Hijack the word Evolution and use it for their purpose according to their definition and we cannot allow them to do that

"Science" coined the term "evolution" to define the types of change required to turn microbes into microbiologists.

I consider the term "evolution" to be very imprecise, and highly Equivocal - and therefore not very useful in a debate. But in terms of historical context, it is you who is offering an alternate definition for "evolution".

 

9 hours ago, Diamond said:

In general science does not contradict the Bible and the Bible does not conflict with Science. They go hand in hand and define each other.

All of the objective elements of the scientific process (i.e. facts) can be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical narrative of history (i.e. the YEC narrative). However, subjective elements of the scientific process (i.e. interpretations - which are reliant on the human presuppositions of the interpreter) can "contradict the Bible".

To-date, no fact (nor set of facts) objectively falsifies the Biblical (YEC) narrative.

There is, therefore, no rational obligation for any Christian to distrust the plainest, most straight-forward reading of the Genesis creation account.

 

10 hours ago, Diamond said:

I do not see any problem with using the science method to study the Bible. Science confirms that the Bible is true and accurate. 

The Scientific Method is very logically robust - however can only be used to study current, natural phenomena. 

To investigate historical (and supernatural) claims requires (as a matter of logical necessity) a modelling approach - which is a deviation away from the robustness of the Scientific Method. Modelling methods cannot generate the same type of confidence available to the Scientific Method - and we should be careful not to confuse or conflate the two approaches.

 

[Diamond]

16 minutes ago, Tristen said:

What is the point of such a conversation?

Just to share with others the fruit of all my labor and study seeking to know the truth of God. I am not a tape recorder to play back what others repeat to themselves over and over again. 

 

18 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Whilst the core definition of the word "evolution" simply means change,

Exactly. Science HiJacked a word, but we do not have to let them get away with it. 

 

20 minutes ago, Tristen said:

This is religious, pseudo-spiritual gobbledygook.

I do have a scripture for you. John 21:25 "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

Thanks for the warning about your "bobbledygook".  I think I will stop here because you are clearly out to try to insult people and their integrity. 

[Sparks]

10 hours ago, Diamond said:

Just to share with others the fruit of all my labor and study seeking to know the truth of God. I am not a tape recorder to play back what others repeat to themselves over and over again.

Are you going to skip the huge issue concerning a lack of evidence for evolution theory?  Also, there is a huge issue with death (evolution theory) bringing Adam into existence where as this idea is in conflict with the Bible which says that Adam was the first man that God put on the scene (instantly), and that Adam brought death into the world by later sinning. 

The Bible never conflicts with itself, except in your case, you have a conflict.  How do you handle this conflict and the lack of evidence for macroevolution which is needed for evolution theory to work?  Why don't we see any macroevolution, today (people today see micro and mistake it for macro)?

Romans 5:12 (NLT) When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.