Kitzmiller v. Dover, Intelligent Design VS Theistic Evolution.

[Diamond]

 Debates over topics like evolution and intelligent design can become quite heated, sometimes overshadowing the actual content of the biology books themselves. These debates have indeed led to legal battles, such as the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.

In that case, the court had to step in to determine whether intelligent design could be taught in public schools, ultimately ruling that it could not because it was deemed a religious view rather than a scientific theory.

It’s a reminder of how important it is to engage with the material directly and understand the science behind it, rather than getting caught up in the controversy. Encouraging open-mindedness and critical thinking can help foster a more informed and respectful dialogue.

We do not use Intelligent Design, we now use the team Theistic Evolution. 

Theistic evolution, also known as evolutionary creationism, is the belief that God or a higher power used the process of evolution to create life on Earth. This view attempts to reconcile religious beliefs with scientific understanding of evolution. Here are some key points:

Integration of Faith and Science: Theistic evolutionists believe that the scientific theory of evolution is compatible with their faith. They see evolution as a tool used by God to bring about the diversity of life.

God’s Role: While accepting the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic mutation, theistic evolutionists believe that God guides or influences these processes in some way.

Variety of Views: There are different interpretations within theistic evolution. Some believe God intervenes directly at certain points, while others see God’s role as more of a sustaining presence throughout the evolutionary process

[The Barbarian]

Overlooked this, earlier.   It's a very good exposition of the subject.    One nitpick; evolution is not about how life was created, but about how life diversifies into different kinds of living things.

Since divine providence can effect God's will by contingency or by necessity, even the random variation of mutations are part of His will in this world.

 

 

[Who me]

As evolution is a theory  developed  to do away with the need of God, how life began is an even part of it.

Quite simply  no biogenesis then no evolution.

[The Barbarian]

On 3/11/2025 at 1:48 PM, Who me said:

As evolution is a theory  developed  to do away with the need of God

Darwin wrote that God created the first living things.    You've been really, really misinformed.

On 3/11/2025 at 1:48 PM, Who me said:

how life began is an even part of it.

No.  Evolutionary theory assumes that life began somehow, and describes how it changes over time.

On 3/11/2025 at 1:48 PM, Who me said:

Quite simply  no biogenesis then no evolution.

But since God tells us that biogenesis is happened according to His will, that's not a problem for evolutionary theory.

 

[Who me]

14 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Darwin wrote that God created the first living things.    You've been really, really misinformed

Yes Darwin wrote that, to appease the convictions of most Christians in England. Just because he wrote that is not indicative of his true beliefs.  See;-That, according to his convictions, all living things descended from a common ancestor. And that species were not to be attributed to God's endless creativity, but were the product of a blind, mechanical process that altered them over the course of millions of years. This alone was pure heresy. Darwin even nursed doubts about the very survival of human beings.

From :-https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/charles-darwin-confessions/

 

If there is no God, and evolution does away with the need for God, then evolutionary  theory has to include how life began.

[The Barbarian]

On 3/12/2025 at 3:22 PM, Who me said:

Yes Darwin wrote that, to appease the convictions of most Christians in England.

He was perfectly willing to outrage them when he argued that if "savages" were brought to England, they'd be just like Englishmen in a few generations.   So your assumption is clearly wrong.

On 3/12/2025 at 3:22 PM, Who me said:

That, according to his convictions, all living things descended from a common ancestor.

Which is entirely consistent with God's word in Genesis. (edit: Darwin did not assert that all living things descended from a common ancestor)

On 3/12/2025 at 3:22 PM, Who me said:

And that species were not to be attributed to God's endless creativity, but were the product of a blind, mechanical process that altered them over the course of millions of years.

Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't random.   You're just selling God short; evolution turns out to be more efficient than design for very complicated things.   Indeed, engineers are now copying evolutionary processes to solve such problems.   They call them "genetic algorithms."     Turns out, God knows best.

On 3/12/2025 at 3:22 PM, Who me said:

This alone was pure heresy.

Creationists aren't heretics; they just don't understand the process very well.

On 3/12/2025 at 3:22 PM, Who me said:

Darwin even nursed doubts about the very survival of human beings.

God only allocated us here for a time, after all.

Quote

If there is no God,

But, as Darwin wrote, there is God.

Quote

and evolution does away with the need for God,

One might as well say that gravity does away with the need for God.   It's just God's creation.

Quote

then evolutionary  theory has to include how life began.

No, that's wrong.   Scientific theories are only about the claims that they make.    It only needs to assume that life began, without specifying how.    Seems like a reasonable assumption to me.

If God just poofed the first living things into being rather creating the earth to bring them forth as He willed, evolution would work exactly as you see it working now.

 

Edited March 17 by The Barbarian
misspelled

[Michael37]

[The Barbarian]

Yes, that's good.   God says that death came to people as a result of Adam's sin.    Because that sin falls on people, not on other creatures.    God makes it clear that the death is a spiritual death, telling Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

And because eating from that tree made Adam like God, but unable to be worth of being with God, a Redeemer was necessary.   Hence John 5:21, the Son makes alive those who trust in Him.

 

[Michael37]

Just now, The Barbarian said:

Yes, that's good.   God says that death came to people as a result of Adam's sin.    Because that sin falls on people, not on other creatures.    God makes it clear that the death is a spiritual death, telling Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

And because eating from that tree made Adam like God, but unable to be worth of being with God, a Redeemer was necessary.   Hence John 5:21, the Son makes alive those who trust in Him.

 

The fact that Christ died a physical death to reverse its curse . . . and made a physical resurrection in victory refutes the argument that it was only spiritual death that arose through Adam.

[The Barbarian]

11 hours ago, Michael37 said:

The fact that Christ died a physical death to reverse its curse . . . and made a physical resurrection in victory refutes the argument that it was only spiritual death that arose through Adam.

First, we have God's word on it; He told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree.   Adam eats and lives physically on many years thereafter.  If God tells the truth, then it wasn't a physical death.   Morever, if Jesus died to save us from a physical death, He failed.    We all die physically. 

And God says that death came to people because of Adam's sin.   Nowhere does He say that it came to other creatures thereby.