• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Theism. Is it by default anti-evolution?

Are theists by default against evolution?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 38 95.0%
  • Something else that I will explain

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • Total voters
    40

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
I never claimed that from the Big Bang to today something happened which required a miracle. So you are asking me to prove something you are making up for yourself as an argument that needs to be proven otherwise. Then you add "accepted by scientists" as well in order to create some kind of bait with a definite trap around it. Not a very valid argument.

The error you made is that "However, the current science has shown how everything scientifically happened without a need for a God, from big bang till now."

You have this idea that when something is going its course, if there is a God he has to come like a greek god and throw a spear and change its course. Thats a very greek God type of interpretation of things. Also, you should know that Roger Penrose applied the Turing test to the course of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe from high/low entropy to perfect expansion of the "r" in the universe to such perfection that any kind of change of any decimal point would create a Big Crunch and its all over. And that's Roger Penrose and Steven Hawkins. Roger Penrose calculated the Turing test probability to a division of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 which is not a number conceivable by man.

Also, I never said that believing in a God is not a faith matter. I cannot understand why you would make an argument for yourself and expect someone else to refute it.

Peace.
Believing in a God, in my view does not have to be a matter of faith. But theism is a matter of faith.

what I described was understanding of typical theists of why there needs to be a God. When we look at arguments between theists and atheists these arguments comes up.
I am not a believer in a Greek type of God myself .
I believe my statement is correct below. When one admits since Big bang, there is nothing that needs a supernatural power do it by doing miracles, it is the same as saying:

"However, the current science has shown how everything scientifically happened without a need for a God, from big bang till now."
Meaning everything that happened during the process from big bang till now, is explainable by laws of physics and science.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Believing in a God, in my view does not have to be a matter of faith. But theism is a matter of faith.

what I described was understanding of typical theists of why there needs to be a God. When we look at arguments between theists and atheists these arguments comes up.
I am not a believer in a Greek type of God myself .
I believe my statement is correct below. When one admits since Big bang, there is nothing that needs a supernatural power do it by doing miracles, it is the same as saying:

"However, the current science has shown how everything scientifically happened without a need for a God, from big bang till now."
Meaning everything that happened during the process from big bang till now, is explainable by laws of physics and science.

You have not understood a single thing I said in the post you are responding to sis. Thus, I respectfully withdraw from this exchange. Have a great day.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
The first person who taught me that Biblical Creation is a myth was my Catholic priest...go figure;)
Hi Estro.
Greeting to Italy.

I think you can't reconcile Genesis and the Theory of Evolution.
Three point to consider:

1/ According to the ToE, the sun came first and the plants on earth last. In Genesis it's the other way round. So why sould God as the author present a metaphor but mess up the order of things? God is the author of the Bible, I think.

2/ If days in Genesis mean billions of years... how long did day seven, the day of rest for God, really last? Or is it ongoing? No. God was active throughout the last 2000 years. In my opinion, the world cannot cope with a God resting for about half a billion of years to begin with.

3/ when Genesis describes the rise of plants, it uses the one description.
When it describes the rise of animals, it uses the other.
When it describes the rise of man, the wording is still different.

In contrast, according to the ToE, the mechanism of how speciation occurs stays the same for all life. So why would God indicate a difference in the manner of how life arises... when it's all the same in reality, if we were to believe the teachings of the ToE?

But I think you don't have to. Whereas the predictions ot the Theory of Gravity can be observed in the wild... the evolution of man for instance, as explained by the ToE, can not be observed.
So the evidence for both theories does not have the same quality, as I see it.

I personally say: the evidence for the ToE is good. Even if not as good as the evidence for the ToG.
However, I believe Bible more when it comes to evolution.
 
Last edited:

Brian2

Veteran Member
Pope Bolsters Church's Support For Scientific View of Evolution (Published 1996)

Year 1996, Pope John Paul II pushed the idea that humans evolved based on "fresh knowledge."

Churches aren't supposed to lie to support God. DNA is used for court proof. DNA proves evolution.

Pope John Paul II also said that God guided evolution.

Notice that one side of the debate uses solid proof, while the other takes advantage of an absence of information to insert biblical views.

The absence of information means that both sides of the debate do not have solid proof. And when I say absence of information I mean in the sciences.
But even if science had all the information about how life forms evolved and what life and consciousness is and how data managed to store itself in DNA in a useable form etc etc that is no evidence against a God did it or guided it theory. The whole system of matter and energy seems set up to evolve and end up in the one place, and that place imo is where God intended it to end up.
It is certainly good that the Catholic Church has learnt it's lessons from it's hard line approach to scientifc heresy in the past. This just opens up new ways of viewing the Bible.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Good question.

A theist believes in a God, because he thinks, this world could not have come to existence purely through laws of physics. Therefore the theist believes there must have been a God who created this world.
If the theist agrees that this world just evolved through laws of physics, he has admitted, this world did not need a God to have created it.
Believing in divinity is not necessarily the same as theism. I as a Bahai believe in God and evolution. But I dont consider this universe the proof of God. I believe the appearance of Manifestation of God in this world on earth, is the foremost proof.

Certainly the coming of Jesus the Messiah is good evidence for God, esp when He fulfilled the prophecies relating to Him. Unfortunately Baha'u'llah has much lacking in the fulfilment of prophecy department.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Is there anything that from big bang till now, happened, that required supernatural power to do it? Something that could not have happened by just the natural process and laws of physics?
If yes, what was it, and please provide a reference to this finding, accepted by scientists. I am very interested to see it.

If there is nothing you can provide to show this, then, believing in a God is just on faith. It could be a true or could be a false belief.

Believing that all this came about through just natural processes with no supernatural power and guidance is just on faith. But of course many atheists seem to not want to say that. They do not like the idea that they have a faith.
But yes there are many unanswered questions in the scientific field and of course those with the faith say that science will find the answers and if I point them out I am just part of the God of the gaps mob, the gaps dwindling all the time. But of course gaps dwindling and understanding physical and chemical mechanisms in the natural world does not take away the need for a God to have begun and designed it all.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Hi Estro.
Greeting to Italy.

I think you can't reconcile Genesis and the Theory of Evolution.
Three point to consider:

1/ According to the ToE, the sun came first and the plants on earth last. In Genesis it's the other way round. So why sould God as the author present a metaphor but mess up the order of things? God is the author of the Bible, I think.

2/ If days in Genesis mean billions of years... how long did day seven, the day of rest for God, really last? Or is it ongoing? No. God was active throughout the last 2000 years. In my opinion, the world cannot cope with a God resting for about half a billion of years to begin with.

3/ when Genesis describes the rise of plants, it uses the one description.
When it describes the rise of animals, it uses the other.
When it describes the rise of man, the wording is still different.

In contrast, according to the ToE, the mechanism of how speciation occurs stays the same for all life. So why would God indicate a difference in the manner of how life arises... when it's all the same in reality, if we were to believe the teachings of the ToE?

But I think you don't have to. Whereas the predictions ot the Theory of Gravity can be observed in the wild... the evolution of man for instance, as explained by the ToE, can not be observed.
So the evidence for both theories does not have the same quality, as I see it.

I personally say: the evidence for the ToE is good. Even if not as good as the evidence for the ToG.
However, I believe Bible more when it comes to evolution.

Interestingly I can read Genesis with science in mind and see science as gradually showing Genesis to be true. Genesis does not say actually how God made the life forms, so evolution can fit Genesis. We do see evolution these days but certainly not from one type of life form to another. Imo this is something that God has stopped. No more types of life forms, everything reproduces after it's own kind now, since God said that it is all very good.
Imo Genesis has different ways of describing the rise of plants and sea creatures and land animals because some things were created and some God made, maybe through just changing the environment in a system that was designed to adapt in predetermined ways in the life forms and to evolve.
I don't think time matters too much to God and I'm sure He was not sitting around for billions of years doing nothing anyway.
When it comes to the sun coming on day 4, I don't read it that way. I see the heavens and the earth having been created on day one and then God continuing the story from the surface of the earth where it was dark (because of it's cloud cover Job 38:9) and had mainly ocean and was formless (flat, no hills etc) The sun was there but could not be seen through the clouds. Then at the end of day one light started to come through the clouds, even though the sun, stars etc could not be seen. It was not till day 4 that God made the sun, stars etc (the word here is asah which means bring about or make in the broadest possible way) so God made the skies clear enough to see the sun, moon, stars etc,
It can be hard to see that science is showing Genesis is correct if you are used to reading Genesis in one way, a literalist way. But really who is to say that I am not being literalist also, just in a different way and seeing words such as "create"(bara) and "made" (asah) and "day" with very proper meanings also.
I think science actually agrees with the way I see Genesis, the details, even if atheists and young earth creationists still have trouble agreeing that science is actually showing Genesis to be correct.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I'm not really interested in getting into creationism v evolution since it's something that's been covered to death. But if you want some keywords to hunt for you could start by 'argument from bad design' (As in, evolutionary pathways that make sense via environmentally selecting random mutations does not make sense with a designer. Such as the pathway of the optic nerve causing a blind spot when a designer could have easily avoided such malfunction.)
Or occam's razor. The process of evolution doesn't require a third party, and a third party is a needless assumption.

You could also look into the Kitzmiller v Dover court case, since it had a plethora of scientists making arguments about the separation of evolution and intelligent design. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

How do you know that evolution does not need a third party?
A designer could have avoided all physical problems but who is to say that is what He wanted to do. God had to make us vulnerable and able to die. This is not paradise, this is earth and should be grateful for even being alive even if it is hard at times.
This whole creation was made to deteriorate and wear out in all sorts of ways.
It does not matter that the courts say intelligent design is not science. Science does not and cannot say yay or nay to a God when it does not even recognise the existence of a God. In practice it has eliminated God from all equations, but that does not mean God is not necessary for those equations to work. If we base our beliefs/world view solely on what science says we have limited our possibilities enormously and remain blind to other ways to discover truths.
 
Hi Estro.
Greeting to Italy.

I think you can't reconcile Genesis and the Theory of Evolution.
Three point to consider:

1/ According to the ToE, the sun came first and the plants on earth last. In Genesis it's the other way round. So why sould God as the author present a metaphor but mess up the order of things? God is the author of the Bible, I think.

2/ If days in Genesis mean billions of years... how long did day seven, the day of rest for God, really last? Or is it ongoing? No. God was active throughout the last 2000 years. In my opinion, the world cannot cope with a God resting for about half a billion of years to begin with.

3/ when Genesis describes the rise of plants, it uses the one description.
When it describes the rise of animals, it uses the other.
When it describes the rise of man, the wording is still different.

In contrast, according to the ToE, the mechanism of how speciation occurs stays the same for all life. So why would God indicate a difference in the manner of how life arises... when it's all the same in reality, if we were to believe the teachings of the ToE?

But I think you don't have to. Whereas the predictions ot the Theory of Gravity can be observed in the wild... the evolution of man for instance, as explained by the ToE, can not be observed.
So the evidence for both theories does not have the same quality, as I see it.

I personally say: the evidence for the ToE is good. Even if not as good as the evidence for the ToG.
However, I believe Bible more when it comes to evolution.

How do you personally think about the "Rest" aspect? The idea of God Resting? Do you think it was due to fatigue, or what was the necessity of such a thing?

Genesis 2:2
way-yiš-bōṯ
2And by the seventh day God had finished the work He had been doing; so on that day He rested from all His work.

"cause to, let, make to cease, celebrate, cause make to fail
A primitive root; to repose, i.e. Desist from exertion; used in many implied relations (causative, figurative or specific) -- (cause to, let, make to) cease, celebrate, cause (make) to fail, keep (sabbath), suffer to be lacking, leave, put away (down), (make to) rest, rid, still, take away."

Exodus 31:17
way-yin-nā-p̄aš.
It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.'"

"be refreshed
A primitive root; to breathe; passively, to be breathed upon, i.e. (figuratively) refreshed (as if by a current of air) -- (be) refresh selves (-ed)."

denominative verb from nephesh
"Definition: a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion
a soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion"

Genesis 8:21
When the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, He said in His heart, "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from his youth. And never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done.
(Isn't this promise broken when all life and everything is eliminated before Judgment Day and the refreshed Earth mentioned in Isaiah?)

Isaiah 65:17
"See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.
(Commentary: " I create. The same verb is used as in Genesis 1:1; and the prophet's idea seems to be that the existing heaven and earth are to be entirely destroyed (see Isaiah 24:19, 20, and the comment ad loc.), and a fresh heaven and earth created in their place out of nothing. The "new Jerusalem" is not the old Jerusalem renovated, but is a veritable "new Jerusalem," "created a rejoicing" (ver. 18; scrap. Revelation 21:2). The germ of the teaching will be found in Isaiah 51:16. The former shall not be remembered. Some suppose "the former troubles" (see ver. 16) to be meant; but it is best (with Delitzsch) to understand "the former heavens and earth." The glory of the new heavens and earth would be such that the former ones would not only not be regretted, but would not even be had in remembrance. No one would so much as think of them."

So the promise is supposedly broken, but that wasn't my issue so much, it was the sniffing. What do you personally conceive of as God in your mind? What do you take God to be?

Genesis 9:6
"Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.

So, do you think that God is totally a man, like a man, sniffing about like a man?

Genesis 3:8
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

God literally was walking with two legs so that God was tinier than the surroundings and going ch ch ch walking around like any animal or human?

How do you decide what is literal and what is not?

What the Early Church Believed: God Has No Body

You don't agree with them, do you?

Can you explain your beliefs and ideas to me?

1. What is God, how do you imagine God, what do you take God to be, describe God's form and appearance and all that based on your beliefs and understandings or what pops into your mind maybe?
2. God will break this promise apparently, so how can you trust the promises?
3. If God is literally sniffing and walking through gardens and also "lamenting" or regretting decisions and decrees made, what is it?
4. The article I sent insists that God is "bodiless" and is not some limited, formed, being, but a very literalist interpretation would suggest that God is indeed very limited in form and shape, and smaller than the surroundings, and has appendages and sense organs, and is literally a man, full of blood, which was Wrestled and defeated in wrestling by Jacob:
Genesis 32:25-
25When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man.26Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.” But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” 27“What is your name?” the man asked. “Jacob,” he replied.28Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have wrestled with God and with men, and you have prevailed.”

Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

This makes it seem like God didn't intend for this to happen, and that something happened which God did not want, that God thus doesn't have total control, and that God also seems concerned or fearful of things going wrong.

Genesis 6:6
The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and His heart was deeply troubled.

1 Samuel 15:11
"I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned away from following Me and has not carried out My instructions." And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all that night.

Isaiah 63:10
But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit. So He turned and became their enemy and He Himself fought against them

Ok, so it sounds like, we are dealing with a human being, like the LDS or Mormons say.

Is that what you believe, are you a member of the LDS, a Mormon?

It appears that God is a man, a magical man perhaps, but a man, smaller than the surroundings, who walks and has a human form, who works and then rests or may need to rest, and after resting becomes refreshed, and sniffs stuff, and is just totally a human being, with blood and breathing and the works. Is that what you believe, how you see God?

5. When and how do you decide what is literal and what is not literal?
 
Interestingly I can read Genesis with science in mind and see science as gradually showing Genesis to be true. Genesis does not say actually how God made the life forms, so evolution can fit Genesis. We do see evolution these days but certainly not from one type of life form to another. Imo this is something that God has stopped. No more types of life forms, everything reproduces after it's own kind now, since God said that it is all very good.
Yes, and my personal thanks for being sane about it! There is no reason that Genesis should be allowed to destroy people's beliefs, minds, and run them straight into the ground or make them unable to cooperate with and believe scientific explanations or insist upon literalism and incompatibility entirely.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It looks like they may be suggesting the rejection of any science which contradicts what they perceive and believe is God's account which they think must be the Truth since it is from God who they think tells only the Truth.

Of course, but if you pretend that it's all "the theory of evolution" it looks like you're only rejecting one part of science instead of many. It seems to be a deliberate YEC tactic - to support their thesis they actually need to reject astronomy, biology, archaeology, genetics, geology, physics, astrophysics, and cosmology (at least).
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Well, this young earth creationists are honestly, scientifically absurd. But I am curious to know if you have many other points where the Bible is against evolution other than the YEC matter where there is no time to evolve. But another point to ponder is if YEC is really biblical.

I think it is Biblical but stubborn and refusing to see anything except one possibility, the old way of viewing the creation story. I guess we are all stubborn like that to an extent. I think many Christians have not spent time considering the creation story and this has allowed the YEC to come in and be dogmatic about YEC, even to the point where it seems to have turned into a pretty major Christian doctrine in the movement and spread to those who have not or have not been able to consider Genesis much and just believe the Bible and what their teachers tell them. Some people do see Christian fundamentalism as cult like in some respects. (hard to know exactly where to draw the lines for what is fundamentalism however)
Some Christians have gone the other way and just see Genesis as a creation myth.
To me it was not good enough to see it as just a fable, it was too much like a historical narrative, and I think it probably is and that science is showing it to be true.
Personally it seems to me that many must be turned away from belief in the Bible if they are brought up to believe that Genesis can only mean YEC, and then go on to study science.

Maybe a Jewish person could clarify this but I remember reading somewhere that a yowm or a day is not necessarily a day as we refer to but a period. So YEC's basing this young earth is based on Adam and his progeny upto Jesus but maybe, just maybe they are mistaken of the 6 days of creation.

I think it would depend which Jew you spoke to. Certainly "days" in Genesis 1 and 2 can be see to not be 24 hour days. Genesis 2 for example uses "day" to cover the whole 6 days of creation.

Nevertheless, is there anything else?

I can see a difference in the use of the Hebrew "bara" and "asah" in the Bible and in Genesis creation story. To me it is obvious that the words are used in different ways but to others the words are interchangeable. Interesting. It is as with the word for 'day', it is obvious to me that it does not mean a 24 hour day in the creation stories but others say it has to mean 24 hour days.
Things can get heated between YECers and other Christians over the subject, but it should not cause such division.
But I'm not really sure what you mean by "is there anything else".
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Certainly the coming of Jesus the Messiah is good evidence for God, esp when He fulfilled the prophecies relating to Him. Unfortunately Baha'u'llah has much lacking in the fulfilment of prophecy department.
Bahaullah knew things without learning from books or people. Divinity sign.
 
Of course, but if you pretend that it's all "the theory of evolution" it looks like you're only rejecting one part of science instead of many. It seems to be a deliberate YEC tactic - to support their thesis they actually need to reject astronomy, biology, archaeology, genetics, geology, physics, astrophysics, and cosmology (at least).
Correctomundo!!!!!!!!!!!
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
The theory of evolution says nothing at all about the formation of the sun and planets.
thank you, in my opinion, it says something about when the first plants evolved. (After the sun came into existence).
Genesis does not say actually how God made the life forms,
that's a myth, I think.
plants Gen 1:11 : And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[5] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so.
Animal Life, Gen 1:24 [...]"Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.

Man/Woman, Gen 2:7, 22 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.[...]
And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[8] into a woman and brought her to the man.

You see, Genesis does go into great detail how God formed living creatures, and how differently he proceeded each time.
God continuing the story from the surface of the earth where it was dark
it was dark until Genesis plainly states there was light. Genesis 1:3.
I follow Bible here.
The sun was there but could not be seen through the clouds.
That's your speculation.
It was not till day 4 that God made the sun, stars etc (the word here is asah which means bring about or make in the broadest possible way) so God made the skies clear enough to see the sun, moon, stars etc,
that's your speculation also, I think. You have nothing to back this up. Even if you were to be right in saying that the verb means to make in it's widest sense... why should it have happened the way you say? It's an empty claim, I think.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
(Isn't this promise broken when all life and everything is eliminated before Judgment Day and the refreshed Earth mentioned in Isaiah?)
+
So the promise is supposedly broken,
no. God promised that he will not destroy all life again. The Isaiah passage you quoted is not about (the destruction of) life.
So, do you think that God is totally a man, like a man, sniffing about like a man?
he can become one. He can incarnate, I think.
How do you decide what is literal and what is not?
Everything is literal by default... unless it's prophecy.
If it's not the Book of Revelation, I handle this question that way: when a child understands it in a literal manner, it's literal. But it can be metaphorical also. In addition to the literal meaning.
If you exclude a literal meaning too often... then the uneducated and the children would have a disadvantage. God is against discrimination, I think.
1. What is God, how do you imagine God, what do you take God to be, describe God's form and appearance and all that based on your beliefs and understandings or what pops into your mind maybe?
2. God will break this promise apparently, so how can you trust the promises?
3. If God is literally sniffing and walking through gardens and also "lamenting" or regretting decisions and decrees made, what is it?
4. The article I sent insists that God is "bodiless" and is not some limited, formed, being, but a very literalist interpretation would suggest that God is indeed very limited in form and shape, and smaller than the surroundings, and has appendages and sense organs, and is literally a man, full of blood, which was Wrestled and defeated in wrestling by Jacob:
Genesis 32:25-
25When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man.26Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.” But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” 27“What is your name?” the man asked. “Jacob,” he replied.28Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have wrestled with God and with men, and you have prevailed.”
1/ not sure
2/ does not break promises.
3/ he regrets, many people don't fathom a God who regrets. Bible says he does, so I see it that way, too.
4/ I believe God can assume a body... but does not always have to have one.

Is that what you believe, are you a member of the LDS, a Mormon?
no, I clarified it in my custom title.
 
Last edited:

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
thank you, in my opinion, it says something about when the first plants evolved. (After the sun came into existence).

You're simply wrong; the theory of evolution is about the development of life on earth. The development of the solar system is an entirely different branch of science.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
You're simply wrong; the theory of evolution is about the development of life on earth. The development of the solar system is an entirely different branch of science.
I do think it states when it was that the first life developed. Compare that to the age of the solar system.
 
Top