Theism. Is it by default anti-evolution?

[firedragon]

Theism "by default" isn't anti-evolution. There's nothing in merely believing that gods exist that implies anything at all about evolution (or about anything else, for that matter).

That being said, some very popular mainstream religions are anti-evolution, even if they aren't flat-out creationist.

A mainstream religion is anti-evolution? Which one's?

 

[firedragon]

The problem lies with people believing that literal interpretation of scripture is a prerequisite for belief in god.

Which scripture are you speaking of? Do you believe that all scripture of all the theologies are against evolution?

 

[firedragon]

Theists aren't by default against evolution but
Theism (the belief in a personal, magically intervening god) is incompatible with science (the belief that there is no magic).

Maybe, but that's not the point of this thread.

 

[firedragon]

It seems to be more an attack on the Bible more than an attack on theism in general. To some atheists if science does not match the Young Earth Creationist way of interpreting Genesis then the Bible is wrong. Maybe it is just another way to justify not believing in God.

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.

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.

Nevertheless, is there anything else?

 

[firedragon]

Theists aren't by default against evolution but
Theism (the belief in a personal, magically intervening god) is incompatible with science (the belief that there is no magic).

Thats great, but not relevant to this thread I believe.

 

[firedragon]

There were already Theists believing in evolution when Atheists did not even exist

Well, I dont know if one could say atheists didnt exist at the time. But I get your point.

 

[Heyo]

Maybe, but that's not the point of this thread.

Not at the surface but when it comes to the root of things it boils down to the question if miracles happen or not.

 

[firedragon]

who believed god started the evolution. So, I guess that's trying to justify to oneself that they can believe in science and creationism at the same time to resolve the divide (like people do when they find it hard to pick a side as if picking one side all of the sudden excludes them from the other).

Thats actually wrong. Because there were people propagating evolution in the 10th and 14th century when there was no official darwinism and this "evolution vs religion" dogma, so they were not trying to reconcile anything, they were just evolutionists.

 

[firedragon]

Not at the surface but when it comes to the root of things it boils down to the question if miracles happen or not.

Still not relevant to the thread.

 

[Quintessence]

The only thing theism is "by default" is accepting of some particular god-concept (and it is ambiguous as to which one or ones). The only thing atheism is "by default" is rejecting of some particular god-concept (and it is ambiguous as to which one or ones). Everything else is theology, and in some cases, mythology or religion.

 

[Father Heathen]

Which scripture are you speaking of? Do you believe that all scripture of all the theologies are against evolution?

No, just the ones with creation stories that are taken literally by adherents.

 

[firedragon]

No, just the ones with creation stories that are taken literally by adherents.

How does creation stories go against evolution? Which one in particular are you referring to?

 

[Father Heathen]

How does creation stories go against evolution? Which one in particular are you referring to?

I'm not referrimg to any particular one, nor do I understand the confusion.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not referrimg to any particular one, nor do I understand the confusion.

Hmm. I understand.

 

[PureX]

Theists aren't by default against evolution but
Theism (the belief in a personal, magically intervening god) is incompatible with science (the belief that there is no magic).

Many theists do not believe God "magically intervenes" in anything. Those who do believe that God intervenes in the course of events do not necessarily assert that he defies the laws of physics to do so. I understand your reference to "magical thinking" and It's valid. But we also need to be careful not to over-emphasize it. Casinos are full of people engaged in magical thinking, and they aren't all theists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A mainstream religion is anti-evolution? Which one's?

The Catholic Church officially rejects polygenism for "true humans." In doing so, they effectively reject the idea that human beings evolved from other apes.

And plenty of religious people of all persuasions believe in "theistic evolution," which involves rejecting a core principle of evolutionary theory: that evolution is an unguided process strongly influenced by random mutation.

 

[Heyo]

Many theists do not believe God "magically intervenes" in anything. Those who do believe that God intervenes in the course of events do not necessarily assert that he defies the laws of physics to do so.

They claim that it isn't magic but only because they don't know how the laws of nature work.

 

[firedragon]

The Catholic Church officially rejects polygenism for "true humans." In doing so, they effectively reject the idea that human beings evolved from other apes.

And plenty of religious people of all persuasions believe in "theistic evolution," which involves rejecting a core principle of evolutionary theory: that evolution is an unguided process strongly influenced by random mutation.

Well, evolutionary theory is not the question here. Its evolution.

 

[PureX]

They claim that it isn't magic but only because they don't know how the laws of nature work.

No one knows how the laws of nature work. We think we know what some of them are, but we have no idea what makes them work. And more to the point, no one knows their origin, either. Which leaves a lot of room for hope and imagination.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The same is true for me. I was first taught about evolution by a nun who obviously loved science. And later a priest explained the biblical stories as mythology. Not to be presumed historical fact.

Most theist are not creationists. Most Christians are not creationists.

Perhaps fable is a better term than mythology. One can learn life lessons from fables.