Theism. Is it by default anti-evolution?

[PureX]

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

Myths are more potent than fables. They tend to be more universal, and more symbolic/metaphorical. Whereas fables are often merely entertaining, and more oriented to children.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

To rephrase:

- the Catholic Church effectively denies that humans evolved from other apes.

- believers in "theistic evolution" deny that evolution actually happened. They argue that God guided a process that merely appeared to be like evolution, but didn't have any random element (and therefore wasn't evolution).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Myths are more potent than fables. They tend to be more universal, and more symbolic/metaphorical. Whereas fables are often merely entertaining, and more oriented to children.

Christians tend to resent the word myth so I was trying to find a more pleasant alternative.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Why do some of the atheists and theists believe that theism is by default against evolution? There are some atheists that insist a theist must be anti-evolution. Its almost blasphemous for a theist to speak about evolution. Sometimes it is almost a religious, dogmatic, 'this is mine, not yours" kind of argument. Why is that?

In the past there have been many theists who propagated and taught evolution. There have also been many who didnt know about the evolutionary thoughts. So they are not against evolution but are theists themselves. Thus, is it an educated assumption or just a dismissal? Or is it something else?

Even some theists think that theists by default are against evolution. Whats strange is that they dont seem to know or believe there were any theists in the past who even spoke of evolution. Well, that's wrong.

Why?

The only theists whose beliefs require them to reject evolution are those who believe in a young Earth only 6 to 10 thousand years old. Any other theist is free to conclude that evolution is the method that god or gods used to create a diversity of life on the planet.

 

[firedragon]

The only theists whose beliefs require them to reject evolution are those who believe in a young Earth only 6 to 10 thousand years old. Any other theist is free to conclude that evolution is the method that god or gods used to create a diversity of life on the planet.

I have to agree with that.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The only theists whose beliefs require them to reject evolution are those who believe in a young Earth only 6 to 10 thousand years old. Any other theist is free to conclude that evolution is the method that god or gods used to create a diversity of life on the planet.

It would be pedantic but not wrong to point out that's not evolution. Which is specifically natural selection, 'guided evolution' doesn't make any sense within the context of evolutionary theory.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Not even all theistic religions have creator gods responsible for the existence of life. Let alone the subsequent diversification of life. Theism and evolution are not mutually exclusive terms.

 

[firedragon]

It would be pedantic but not wrong to point out that's not evolution. Which is specifically natural selection, 'guided evolution' doesn't make any sense within the context of evolutionary theory.

You are mixing evolution and Darwins evolution by natural selection.

Nevertheless, there were theists who also proposed natural selection in the past but it is a matter of causality. They believed there was an initial "causer" if one could use that word.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You are mixing evolution and Darwins evolution by natural selection.

Nevertheless, there were theists who also proposed natural selection in the past but it is a matter of causality. They believed there was an initial "causer" if one could use that word.

It would be trivial to say that people of all stripes believe in some kind of evolution. From pokemon evolution to the evolution of ideas.
But what a lot of atheists (rather materialists) specifically have a problem with is posing non-scientific creationism as science. Intelligent design is one such example.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It would be pedantic but not wrong to point out that's not evolution. Which is specifically natural selection, 'guided evolution' doesn't make any sense within the context of evolutionary theory.

Perhaps scientifically it's not evolution, but theistically if you believe some god being has absolute control over everything then there really isn't any difference between 'natural' selection and 'god-guided' selection. It only has the appearance of 'natural' selection if you don't believe in a god that's ultimately in control of everything.

 

[PureX]

Christians tend to resent the word myth so I was trying to find a more pleasant alternative.

Well, I think if they really understood the power and importance of mythology throughout human history they would be honored to call their religious myths, myths. Unfortunately, many do not have any understanding of what mythology really is, and others have even been taught that the Bible is "God speaking to us" so that the myths therein must be taken as historical fact, and not as myths at all. So they react badly to the term, I agree.

But I don't think the solution is to bow to their ignorance. I think it's better to blast them right in the face with a big fat dose of reality and reason!

 

[firedragon]

It would be trivial to say that people of all stripes believe in some kind of evolution. From pokemon evolution to the evolution of ideas.
But what a lot of atheists (rather materialists) specifically have a problem with is posing non-scientific creationism as science. Intelligent design is one such example.

Well. Maybe that's an atheists point of view. It seems like the dismissal of a theist as a "this is not yours" kind of discrimination. It sounds like a violation of human rights based on a genetic fallacy. Sounds like.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Well. Maybe that's an atheists point of view. It seems like the dismissal of a theist as a "this is not yours" kind of discrimination. It sounds like a violation of human rights based on a genetic fallacy. Sounds like.

Saying 'your idea doesn't meet scientific criteria' is not a human rights violation. lol

 

[firedragon]

Saying 'your idea doesn't meet scientific criteria' is not a human rights violation. lol

Which idea?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Perhaps scientifically it's not evolution, but theistically if you believe some god being has absolute control over everything then there really isn't any difference between 'natural' selection and 'god-guided' selection. It only has the appearance of 'natural' selection if you don't believe in a god that's ultimately in control of everything.

Like I said in my other reply, it would be trivially correct to say that most everyone believes in a kind of evolution. Whether that's evolution of an individual as they grow up, or evolution of ideas, or evolution in Pokemon. But that would hardly illicit the sort of reaction described by the OP. The only thing that does, in my experience, is debate around evolution via natural selection. Which intelligent design is specifically not. There was even a big court battle over it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Which idea?

Intelligent design.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Like I said in my other reply, it would be trivially correct to say that most everyone believes in a kind of evolution. Whether that's evolution of an individual as they grow up, or evolution of ideas, or evolution in Pokemon. But that would hardly illicit the sort of reaction described by the OP. The only thing that does, in my experience, is debate around evolution via natural selection. Which intelligent design is specifically not. There was even a big court battle over it.

We're talking about the evolution of less complex life forms into more complex lifeforms over time. Atheists believe that it is a natural process. Most theists believe that it is a process guided by the hand of god. YE creationists do not believe that this process occurs at all and that the creator god being created every lifeform exactly as it currently is.

 

[firedragon]

Intelligent design.

Ah. Intelligent Design.

So how do you understand intelligent design?

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Ah. Intelligent Design.

So how do you understand intelligent design?

Modern life/diversification of life brought about through controlled change (Design) by an intelligent entity.